Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: Firstly, I don't disagree that negative arguments can work. I do think that in the presence of many positions on the God question that taking a negative approach isn't as convincing as taking a positive one.

But we can't take a positive approach as it is not possible.

philologos wrote: »

In respect to fairies (which isn't at all comparable to God given the basis of a necessary first cause in Creation) there's not very many positions that one can take on it. There's only two as far as I can tell.

First, assuming your problem with the comparison holds, it has no baring on the reasons why you don't think they exist.
Second, neither does the variety of positions. And of course even if I couldn't find you a multitude of completely different beliefs on that exact subject, the fact that you cannot think of any does not mean there can't be many others.

So again, can you please provide what you are asking from us and provide the exactly positive arguments you use to support your afairyism?
If you can't do that can you please state clearly the exact reasons you lack a belief in fairies?

philologos wrote: »

The problem is very simple - even if you did successfully rubbish Christianity, it does not further atheism ultimately.

And you seem to be getting stuff backwards.
Atheism isn't just against christianity, it's against all theism.
The reason we here focus on Christianity is because it is the one we run into the most.

And the idea of "furthering" atheism is kinda as stupid as furthering Afairyism.
They're simply the default positions in the face of a lack of good evidence.
The only reason Atheism is a thing while Afairyism isn't is simply because theism was assumed to be the societal norm for centuries but no one is trying to get laws enacted because the fairies told them to (or at least not in numbers that are worrying.)

philologos wrote: »

Indicatory evidence is valuable in any respect. There are plenty of unique things about Christianity, which will inevitably set it apart from other faiths. I don't need to go around refuting every single belief system. If I find that there is evidence to back Christianity up, and the more and more that Christianity and the Biblical record are attested to in reality, the more and more confident I can be in believing it.

When your indicatory evidence is indistinguishable from a host of other faiths' indicatory evidence you are left in the tricky position of helping to prove every other religion is true at the same time. Unless you are of the position that all religions are equally true you are actually undermining your own position. Every time you dismiss a Sathya Sai Baba or a Joseph Smith as being charlatans because they were not true prophets you remove a stone form your own foundation. This is because huge portions of what made these people prophets also apply to Jesus.

However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this. Atheists in the past have presented positive arguments as to God's existence, and in my opinion they can be reasonably expected to again. An example would be the Problem of Evil a commonly put positive atheist argument as to why they believe that God's existence is less likely than not. I respect that argument far more and find it more valuable precisely because it is a demonstration of why people regard atheism to be an accurate position in reality.

I have, among others(King Mob) tried to explain that it is unnecessary to have a positive position of atheism. I will let you respond to King Mob as my questions would only overlap his.

Ethical behaviour simply put, is not relative.

Simply put ethical behaviour is relative and subjective, even for you and all those who claim it is absolute.
Even if I were to accept for a moment that ethics are somehow absolute in the universe it makes no difference to your position.
Your and everyone else's ethics are subjective as you have no way of determining what is the absolute without falling back on your own subjective opinions and assessments of what the absolute is.

The entire principle of universal human rights is also built on the concept of an objective standard. Some examples would be the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The Declaration of Human Rights are a self made, subjective human invention. A set of playground rules we made for ourselves as we stamp around the planet trying not to kick sand in other kids faces.
And just because a deist may have attributed his own ethical creation to a deist god does not give any support to the concept of an absolute morality.

Human rights are undeniable precisely because they are not ours to give, and not ours to take away. There is an objective moral law that humans generally attempt to adhere to, humans fail to do this many times, but none the less when ethical issues arise, humans go for objective standards, they do not pfaff around with moral relativity. An objective moral law, has a law giver, much as other conventions have a law giver.
Subjective morality is rarely if ever demonstrated.

They are ours to give and to take at our leisure. Humans do have an in built, evolved, sense of right and wrong. It has served humanity well enough, but our greatest ethical achievements have been the ones we chose for ourselves.
The universal(as in wherever you find humans) declaration of human rights, gender equality, abolition of slavery. These are all invented ethics created by subjective minds. Subjective morality is demonstrated in every one of these achievements as they are human inventions.
You assert that "There is an objective moral law" but have nothing to back this up but an appeal to how human ethics seems to work to you. You fail to recognise that as soon as a value judgment involves a human mind it becomes inherently subjective.

Again. Firstly, archaeology does matter. You're making the mistake that each of these arguments on their own should be absolute proof of God's existence. That's false. In the same way that finding an item of someone elses clothing beside a murdered body does not demonstrate absolutely that that other person killed the person.

True, each argument one its own does not have to prove a god. However when each of your arguments is in turn refuted you are left with no arguments to assemble into an argument for a god.

What I am suggesting is that the more and more we find that demonstrates the Bible is true, the more and more reason that I have to believe and trust in His Word. That's simple. As for Biblical prophesy. It's not unreliable in the case of Jesus when we have clear mentions of His birth, death, ministry, and His resurrection written 600 years before his death. They can be clearly cited and demonstrated. These prophesies go right down to His death on the cross (Psalm 22), to that He would be buried in a rich mans tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There are literally hundreds of these and they deserve consideration rather than being fobbed off, I could go on, but I want to address the rest of your post. When documents that precede Jesus by 600 years back up the Gospel accounts of His life, that gives them more credence.

Again, prophecy proves nothing bar a desire to interpret documents to fit a narrative. If prophecy is an indicator of some divine power then Nostradamus must be a prophet sent from God? If not then you have again undermined your own argument.

Well. Let's look at it, on the basis of my previous 2009 post because I don't believe this was addressed. I had Jim Jones mentioned, I've had Joseph Smith mentioned. These situations differ to the Resurrection clearly. That's why the Resurrection should be considered in its own right on its own circumstances. Most of the comparisons I had discussed on the A&A forum before, simply differed fundamentally to the situation that the Gospel presented. Secondly, I have zero interest in discussing anything else, I want to discuss Jesus.

You only want to discuss Jesus as bringing in all the other parallels make for uncomfortable reading and undermine your position. A resurrection story is nothing special in the origin of religions. Supernatural events are ten a penny across the globe.

Firstly, the idea that one person would be deluded about someone that they were with for 3 years is fair enough. It's possible that one person could be. When we go up the scale in terms of numbers, this becomes less and less likely when we consider the 11 disciples as a whole. Indeed, it becomes even less likely when we consider 500 witnesses as Paul mentions. He mentions even that they were still alive and that believers could go to Jerusalem to see them. The delusion argument is limited in its scope. It is extremely unlikely to presume that all were of an unsound mental state, and it is extremely unlikely that up to 500 people would make the same mistake in identifying a man even if for a moment we thought that all 11 disciples were deluded.

Jonestown had 909 people deluded enough to kill themselves. Sathya Sai Baba has millions of followers and many followers have had objects spontaneously appear on pictures of him. Deluding 500 people is child's play in comparison.

Secondly, the idea that the Apostles made up the New Testament as fiction is laughable also given how silly the disciples are presented in it. Indeed, as I've already mentioned placing women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection would have been a very humbling revelation in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies which were inherently misogynistic. If you read the beginning of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for example you'll see exactly how Greek society was.

I wouldn't suggest it is fiction entirely. The authors may have genuinely believed the story but somewhere along the line reality was left behind.

Thirdly, think about it. You realise that Jesus died, and that was it. There is no benefit in risking your life to tell people that He has been resurrected for the dead and that all can be saved through His name. Motivating one person to risk their lives for nothing is difficult enough. Motivating 500+ people to do the same is considerably more difficult. You would think that returning to Galilee to fish would be the more logical option.

Their Christ/messiah was supposed to be a King of Israel, having him die was a little inconvenient for that. For the movement to continue they needed him to not have died. Clinging to the movement and prophecy despite huge setbacks is not uncommon in cult movements.

Let me why I say this is nonsense. What I'm doing is looking to the Bible, and seeing how it is evident in the world around us, and how history and archaeology can help us in determining its truth. That's a rather good approach to deal with any text in terms of seeing its truth or falsity. I don't see why you consider that approach to be lacking, and I don't know how else you expect me to argue for the Bible if I can't look to the Bible and say, I see X, Y and Z in the world.

You can argue from the bible all you want but is disingenuous to ignore all the parallels in all the false religions that you gloss over in your own.

As opposed to the hyperactive there is no rhyme, ultimate cause, or ultimate reason to the world.

There is no need for an ultimate reason. I suspect you only have a deep desire for one.

Please don't try to just ignore serious questions with wishy washy answers. Did the early Jews and Christians have some sort of defense so that hyperactive agency detection did not make them see gods in the natural world?

As opposed to the idea that the universe created itself, or indeed postulating a multiverse just to explain this one.

I don't know is an acceptable stance given our current science. Postulating a hyper intelligence that just created itself is no improvement and arguably worse.

Thank you for taking the time to reply anyway even if a lot of what i originally said seems to have slipped by you.
I have some sinning to do for the rest of the weekend so I might not be able to respond for a while:)

philologos wrote: »

It isn't anywhere near as beneficial for atheism to present negative arguments as it is to present positive arguments for why God's existence is improbable.

But we can't provide positive arguments as that's impossible, which you now know since you've yet again failed to provide examples.

philologos wrote: »

One requires that one go systematically through each faith and claim that they are false. The other just requires that one phrase general reasoning behind why God's existence is improbable.

The latter is a heck of a lot more convincing and useful for people like me. The former isn't convincing at all.

First, explaining why God's existence is improbable, is by definition a negative argument. It is criticising the claim that god exists.

And again, to use the example you are ignoring, you know the other option is nonsense because you haven't and can't gone through every version fairyism and rejected them all.

Or maybe you can provide these while you provide your positive arguments for afairyism I'm still waiting for.

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: Atheism is against all theism. That's my point. That's why if you rubbish Christianity, you're not advocating atheism. It's a win for anyone who is opposed to Christianity, someone who advocates for Islam for example.

Often times when rubbishing Christianity the arguments cross over to others.
But the only reason we rubbish christianity the most is because those are the claims we encounter the most.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?

OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?


No. You may not ask :P



To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?

In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.

To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.

It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.

What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?

To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative - most definitely so from the time of the so called
Donation Of Constantine and the Church becoming a Temporal Power. Any good that came thereafter was purely incidental as its main goal was the pursuit and maintenance of power.

Thereafter it really is the story of shaking off this influence through the renaissance/reformation/enlightenment right up to our own times.

Any unique message was lost when religion became organised on such a centralised scale. Now that christianity is losing influence and in many cases not wishing to have such influence in temporal affairs they are carrying that message better than ever before.

Dante pointed that out way back when he consigned Pope Boniface VIII to the 8th Circle of hell for proclaiming that not alone was he the spiritual head but also superiour in temporal matters to the Emperor. Christians should have listened more to Dante and less to the popes.

As for all the claims regarding Art Sculpture etc- I don't really buy it- what was it Gene Kelly said ''Gotta Dance'' - Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

Now may I ask you a question ? Accepting you believe in Christianity and you believe it is unique and accepting that as yer man said the medium is the message and not wishing to get into a slanging match ,

Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative...

Sorry, what is the significance of the first millennium? Are you suggesting that people stopped deriving comfort sometime after 1000 AD?

marienbad wrote: »

That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

I would certainly love to hear more. Maybe with something to back up your position. I find it interesting to read that you think that Christianity with all it's far reaching influence over the centuries (for better or worse) has contributed nothing positive apart from some warm fuzzy feeling it gives the individual. I've honestly never heard anyone go so far as to claim this. So please fill me in on the long-hand version. PM me if you like.

marienbad wrote: »

Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

Please note that what I didn't ask was what would have happened if Christianity had never existed. What I asked you presupposed history as we know know it (or think we do) and not a fantasy realm without McDonalds, Christianity, Manchester United or any other staple of reality. I'm not asking a "what if..." question. I'm asking you what is the main positive contribution Christianity (and this can mean anything from a religious institution like the RCC to social reform to art or whatever) has made to humanity. Now this correction may not change your answer but it is nevertheless worth clarifying exactly what I was asking.

marienbad wrote: »

Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?

I don't think I am well versed enough in world religions or philosophy to adequately answer your question. But let me be clear - I don't claim that Christianity must have brought something new to the table in order for it to be true. Indeed, the idea the that law has been written to all hearts is fairly fundamental to the NT. Besides, the fact that Christianity grew out of Judaism and in opposition to other hostile pagan world-views means that it was never a tabula rasa religion. It didn't pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Your question seems like a modification of Christopher Hitchens' rhetorical stunt - "Name me one act of kindness that a theist can do that an atheist can't ". (I'm paraphrasing there). I am not saying that Christianity created absolutely unique ideas or that Christians are somehow able to be kinder than atheists.

The unique claims of Christianity - for example, the idea that the Messiah was God himself or the formulation of the Trinity - aren't things that would move you. So in a way I am confused by the question. Is this the point you mention Zeitgeist: The Movie and the parallel claims with Christ and other near-eastern religions?