Do atheists have an achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments?

MatthewVII

CDfm wrote: »

Some atheists are often unsure about who they are debating with ,so (God belief to oneside) a Catholic ,may very well agree more or less with an atheist on certain issues and have more common ground with them then a Catholic might have with a Creationist.

Being atheist means you don't have to disagree with Catholics on everything. Where on earth did you get that idea? I'm pretty sure they would fundamentally disagree on the existence of God, but might both agree on the value of adding fresh black pepper to a pasta dish.

CDfm wrote:

Mistaking certain cultural or philosophical beliefs with religous beliefs is another. The classic is abortion as some Atheists that post on boards will tell you they are against abortion and are Pro-life in the way we understand it in Ireland and which many Catholics agree with.

And you're confusing atheism with something which prescribes moral guidelines which must be rigidly adhered to by its followers. Moral guidelines don't have to be prescribed, they're just there. Where morality is a grey area, of course people will differ. Atheists merely don't believe god exists. Whether they believe that abortion is wrong or not is irrelevant, as this is a matter of personal opinion.

CDfm wrote:

Others will have certain concerns about certain philosophical issues that are of concern to them. They might be under the delusion that all Christian belief is generic. That again is not the case. So if Jehovah witnesses are anti blood transfusions it does not follow that a Methodist will be. Nil points for arguing a theological position of one religion with a Christian of a different denomination.

This is simply not true and tries to paint atheists as ignorant. I'm sure there are atheists who don't realise the differences in different denominations, just as I am sure that some christians believe that all atheists are pro-choice (see above). This doesn't mean anything, just that atheists are missing out on some factual details, but the salient point is that all christian denominations are generic to a degree, in that they all accept the existence of Jesus and God. Which really is what atheists don't accept, not anything to do with blood transfusions or whether God is from another planet.

CDfm

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they would fundamentally disagree on the existence of God,

christian denominations are generic to a degree, in that they all accept the existence of Jesus and God. Which really is what atheists don't accept, not anything to do with blood transfusions or whether God is from another planet.

I deliberitely did say some atheists.

I do agree with you on most of what you posted and the thread subject just leaves everything open to generalisations which are difficult to escape.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Some atheists are often unsure about who they are debating with ,so (God belief to oneside) a Catholic ,may very well agree more or less with an atheist on certain issues and have more common ground with them then a Catholic might have with a Creationist.

What are you trying to say here? That makes no sense, Catholic's are Creationists by default,apologies if I'm missing something here.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

What are you trying to say here? That makes no sense, Catholic's are Creationists by default,apologies if I'm missing something here.

Apologies if I dont grasp your logic

Thats like saying Atheists are Satanists by default.

You are either a Creationist or you are not in the sameway you are an Atheist or you are not.

Now can you explain what is meant by a little bit pregnant:rolleyes:

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Apologies if I dont grasp your logic

Thats like saying Atheists are Satanists by default.

You are either a Creationist or you are not in the sameway you are an Atheist or you are not.

Now can you explain what is meant by a little bit pregnant:rolleyes:

It's more like saying an atheist doesn't beieve in God by default. Which is true.(Atheists don't belive in Satan either)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Creationists are people of any religion who believe the universe and everything in it was created by god, this includes Catholics. Do you mean New World Creationists? Being a more extreme version,that think the world is only a few thousand years old and deny evolution,geology etc?

Galvasean

Generally when people say Creationists they mean of the sixth day kind. Saying a Christian believes God created the universe is a given. The term 'Creationism' refers to the young Earth ideology.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

Generally when people say Creationists they mean of the sixth day kind. Saying a Christian believes God created the universe is a given. The term 'Creationism' refers to the young Earth ideology.

Right, thats all I needed to know

Dades

Mickeroo wrote: »

Right, thats all I needed to know

In fact, all you need to know about creationists is in here.

You should probably know that the Catholic Church entertains the theory of evolution, so does not proclaim creationist beliefs.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

In fact, all you need to know about creationists is in here.

You should probably know that the Catholic Church entertains the theory of evolution, so does not proclaim creationist beliefs.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I had to rely on A & A to explain the core content of that thread. Its a tad extreme.

bogwalrus

i think i have one.

People i know who have spiritual beliefs seem to be much more compassionate in way of expression and don't seem to have much of an ego.

A lot of non believers seem to be very uptight and have massive ego's as if there is a need to satisfy their ego's by always being right when it comes to any kind of debate or argument.

Maybe it is a sign that these delusions we create about almighty powers are necessary to supress some intrinsic egoistic nature. After all humans are extremely flawed and often i ponder that maybe the scientific approach, be it the most logical way to look at the world, might just be taken a step too far surpassing our humanity where as humans we do need faith to live in harmony.

Would it be fair to bring in that old saying that if humanity knew the meaning of life there would be no humanity.

sink

bogwalrus wrote: »

i think i have one.

People i know who have spiritual beliefs seem to be much more compassionate in way of expression and don't seem to have much of an ego.

A lot of non believers seem to be very uptight and have massive ego's as if there is a need to satisfy their ego's by always being right when it comes to any kind of debate or argument.

Maybe it is a sign that these delusions we create about almighty powers are necessary to supress some intrinsic egoistic nature. After all humans are extremely flawed and often i ponder that maybe the scientific approach, be it the most logical way to look at the world, might just be taken a step too far surpassing our humanity where as humans we do need faith to live in harmony.

Would it be fair to bring in that old saying that if humanity knew the meaning of life there would be no humanity.

So in essence what you're saying is that if atheists have an achilles heel it is that they are right and they know it! :P

But seriously you do seem to be painting all atheists with one brush and you are attacking their personality rather than attacking their theological position.

The Mad Hatter

Bogwalrus: I've noticed that general tendency too, particularly with Buddhists and some Christians (though of course it's not true across the board). It's what attracted me to Buddhist philosophy in the first place and, even though I wouldn't really call myself a Buddhist any more, I do still have a lot of time for its philosophy.

bogwalrus

i didn't mean to paint all atheists like that but i don't think it is a coincidence that a lot do seem very egoistic.

I'm just postulating that maybe science with its strict rules and logic clash with the essence of humanity which i believe is compassion. And from the looks of it from the smart and interesting atheist friends i have i find they are so strong headed and have ego's i could almost taste in my mouth. In comparisson to my believer or spiritual friends i have who are way more laid back and definitely more compassionate.

Don't get me wrong now i cant stand the arguements of christianity or any man made religion. I do though have plenty of time for people who are open spiritually (if that is the right word) like buddhists and maybe people with certain self made philosophies on life that arent driven by its relevance to science.

CDfm

sink wrote: »

But seriously you do seem to be painting all atheists with one brush and you are attacking their personality rather than attacking their theological position.

Thats the problem with a thread like this-you are going to get generalisations.

The theological position of Atheists is that you don't believe in God or accept the Bible. Thats ok with me.

Some then will go on to assert that Christianity (in Ireland) is endemic in state institutions,science and education and that we do not have a secular state. Whereas Christians will say bollox -we accomadate you and are democratic.

THe truth is there is overlap as we are a pluralist society and a democracy and there is some truth to both arguments.

You also have quite a few myths and distortions but there is a lot of common ground on laws,ethics and moral philosophy that some are afraid to admit. Stereotypes are great that way.

Mickeroo

Dades wrote: »

In fact, all you need to know about creationists is in here.

You should probably know that the Catholic Church entertains the theory of evolution, so does not proclaim creationist beliefs.

Yea I know the catholic church accepts evolution, but I was under the impression they still thought God set the ball rolling and Evolution is one of his tools as it were.

Thanks for the link

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yea I know the catholic church accepts evolution, but I was under the impression they still thought God set the ball rolling and Evolution is one of his tools as it were.

Thanks for the link

Would that bother you if it turned out that some sort of a supreme being created the Big Bang and everything else sort of evolved.

Surely that would be fairly neutral for you?

Dades

I don't think the concept of a 'supreme being' bothers atheists too much, just the concept that people can clasp their hands and talk to it.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I don't think the concept of a 'supreme being' bothers atheists too much, just the concept that people can clasp their hands and talk to it.

The supreme being cares not what you think!

Mena

Well I just found my new desktop background, thanks Goodbye Hubble images!!

DapperGent

JimiTime wrote: »

The theist on the other hand, approaches the God question from outside the realm of science.

But what reason do you have for believing that anything outside the realm of science actually exists?

Overblood

CDfm wrote: »

Would that bother you if it turned out that some sort of a supreme being created the Big Bang and everything else sort of evolved.

Surely that would be fairly neutral for you?

I've contemplated the idea of a supreme being setting off the big bang, but the fantasy always collapses when you ask either:

1) Where is the evidence?

2) Who created the supreme being? And while we're asking, who created the being who created the supreme being? And who created the being who created the being who created the supreme being? What about the being who created the being who created the being who created the being..... and so on and so forth.


Another fun idea i've pondered is Directed Panspermia. We could have been seeded here on the young Earth by some advanced lifeform, as part of an experiment. A handful of simple self-replicating molecules, or maybe even one, planted in a primordial pool somewhere on earth. The experiment? See how long it takes these molecules to find "home". Maybe they're watching us from another planet, or colonized planetary system, nearby. Waiting for us to develop the technology which allows us to accomplish interstellar travel. What happens when we get there? Who knows. Sure as hell won't find jesus anyways.

And since this is science-fiction, I don't have to answer the question "but where does the advanced alien civilization come from?":pac:

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Would that bother you if it turned out that some sort of a supreme being created the Big Bang and everything else sort of evolved.

Surely that would be fairly neutral for you?

Yea that's pretty neutral for me. It's why i would bother to worship this being that doesn't seem to be around now that puzzles me.

Húrin

DapperGent wrote: »

But what reason do you have for believing that anything outside the realm of science actually exists?

eh, it's a big question

CDfm

Overblood wrote: »

I've contemplated the idea of a supreme being setting off the big bang, but the fantasy always collapses when you ask either:

1) Where is the evidence?

2) Who created the supreme being? And while we're asking, who created the being who created the supreme being? And who created the being who created the being who created the supreme being? What about the being who created the being who created the being who created the being..... and so on and so forth.

Thats the thing about being a supreme being you are not really answerable to anyone. Why would a supreme being need to justify himself or provide evidence?

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I don't think the concept of a 'supreme being' bothers atheists too much, just the concept that people can clasp their hands and talk to it.

And why would someone praying bother an atheist?

nozzferrahhtoo

CDfm wrote: »

And why would someone praying bother an atheist?

I think you missed the point here to your failing but I can see why you missed it to the failing of the person you are replying to. He did not phrase it very well.

The problem we have is that not only do these people claim there is a god, but that they can talk to it, know its mind, know what it wants and that we are somehow admonished to conform to its wishes.

So no, the problem is not with people praying, but with what people do with the concept of praying.

The main atheist request is this: Prove there IS a god before you attempt to prove you can talk to it or know what it think and wants.

And if this concept is in somehow difficult for you to grasp or you think us unreasonable to ask it then I invite you to go into the MD of your company and tell him that the previously silent and invisible REAL MD of the company (who usurps the wishes of all others including the owners) has told to you by revelation that you deserve a raise.

When, later, you sit at home and really and truly realise why you were politely fired from your position you will understand generally what the atheist problem is with the theistic position.

CDfm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think you missed the point here to your failing but I can see why you missed it to the failing of the person you are replying to. He did not phrase it very well.

The problem we have is that not only do these people claim there is a god, but that they can talk to it, know its mind, know what it wants and that we are somehow admonished to conform to its wishes.

So no, the problem is not with people praying, but with what people do with the concept of praying.

The main atheist request is this: Prove there IS a god before you attempt to prove you can talk to it or know what it think and wants.

His phrasing was fine and yours is a different point.

We accept the bible as sufficient proof and you dont.I also would accept Julius Caesars book the Gallic Wars as proof that the wars happened and the Helvetti and other tribes he mentions existed.

The other point on knowing Gods mind. If you exclude God you are left with issues relating to moral philosophy. On matters of Moral Philosophy what points impede on you or do you have problems with.

nozzferrahhtoo

Two completely different points are contained within your reply here and so I am having some difficulty in replying. I will do my best however. I will use crude ascii markings to distinguish my replies. I like to keep it old style. I do still think the problem is with his phrasing of his slightly tongue in cheek reply and your understanding of same.

---

Yes we do accept such books as claims of said wars and said tribes. However there is a difference here that you are not acknowledging. These books do not claim anything we do not know to be common place.

Read the books and hear of the wars. Ask yourself “Do we know wars exist and are they therefore possible in relation to this book”. Well we only have to look to Iraq to say “yes wars exist, therefore I can lend SOME credence to the book in my hand”.

We only have to look at the current tribes in South Africa and Australia to say “Wow yes, tribes do exist so therefore I can lend SOME credence to the claims of this book in my hand again!!!!”.

Of course this does not PROVE the contents of the books, but at least it renders them solely on the planes of what can be true.

However when you pick up the Bible…. Or the lord of the rings…… or the Bourne Identity….. one must ask oneself “Can I look at the world today and see that gods….. goblins, orcs and wizards…… or super trained spy soldiers exists” I see no such proof so I am less inclined to grant the same credence. I am instead granted the permission to say “This book is claiming extraordinary claims therefore I am perfectly warranted to request extraordinary evidence!”

IF you do not see the difference in the quality of the truth claims here then I would be happy to help you further in PM or in person.

---

This reply will be shorter. I have yet to have it shown to me that the realms of moral philosophy require a god, a set and unmovable standard, or anything that requires divine explanation. Therefore I am unable to answer your non sequitar (in relation to the comment of mine to which you actually replied) question when the basic premise of it is non sensical to me. IF you have a method by which to clarify why I need such pre suppositions I would be only TOO Happy to attempt to answer what you have asked me.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Thats the thing about being a supreme being you are not really answerable to anyone. Why would a supreme being need to justify himself or provide evidence?

Why do you believe in the existence of a supreme being that doesn't justify himself or provide evidence of his existence?

The toothfairy doesn't provide evidence or justify his own existence either, which is her right. And we don't believe in her, which is the sensible thing to do.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you believe in the existence of a supreme being that doesn't justify himself or provide evidence of his existence?

The toothfairy doesn't provide evidence or justify his own existence either, which is her right. And we don't believe in her, which is the sensible thing to do.

This is not about the toothfairy- and this is a good example of an Achilles heel as when religous discussion comes around some atheists sidetrack the issue. Can we ban toothfairies ,dragons and teapots from this discussion as there are plenty of threads on them.

The core issue - does a supreme being need to reveal themselves - no. His/Her view might be- No why should I -there is the bible as evidence and you can take it or leave it.

So atheists decide to leave it. Well big swinging mickey - I have no issue with it. Why should I.