Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see.

It's called evolution mate, which is a fact. Google "evolution is both a theory and a fact" for an explanation of that. The short version is that animals have been observed to change over time so it definitely does happen and science has been developed a theory to explain it. Gravity has had a number of theories from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein but apples didn't suspend themselves in the air waiting for us to develop the correct understanding of this observable fact. Evolution is also an observable fact but just because we might not fully understand it yet doesn't mean it's not happening. It most definitely is, you only have to look at the fact that we need a new flu vaccine every year because the virus evolves to be immune to the old one

Jakkass wrote: »

Just as much as this is the case, I would argue that humanity also has a purpose to the world, and it is up for us to discern what exactly our purpose in the world is, or what purpose has been put aside for us.

There is no why to why anything in the natural universe exists the way it does?

Christianity hasn't been shown to be flawed, if it was I wouldn't have adopted it as my faith. It's merely a claim to say that you think that something is flawed, it's rather different from it being flawed objectively.

The fact that you don't see the flaws doesn't mean they are not there mate. I see them and they have yet to be explained away to me yet

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see. Just as much as this is the case, I would argue that humanity also has a purpose to the world, and it is up for us to discern what exactly our purpose in the world is, or what purpose has been put aside for us.

There is no why to why anything in the natural universe exists the way it does?

Christianity hasn't been shown to be flawed, if it was I wouldn't have adopted it as my faith. It's merely a claim to say that you think that something is flawed, it's rather different from it being flawed objectively.

I don't believe our appendages have any "purpose" other to serve us in the environment that we've evolved into. Our designs are totally ignorant to what will happen in the future

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's called evolution mate, which is a fact. Google "evolution is both a theory and a fact" for an explanation of that. The short version is that animals have been observed to change over time so it definitely does happen and science has been developed a theory to explain it. Gravity has had a number of theories from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein but apples didn't suspend themselves in the air waiting for us to develop the correct understanding of this observable fact

I have no reason to believe that the evolutionary process wasn't carried out by God, and that there was indeed a purpose behind it. I also have no reason to believe that the Big Bang wasn't carried out by God. It's much more reasonable than suggesting this happened all of it's own accord, and it's much more reasonable than suggesting that there is absolutely no purpose to our existence as human beings.

Again, the assumption that evolution has somehow done away with God is absurd.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that you don't see the flaws doesn't mean they are not there mate. I see them and they have yet to be explained away to me yet

Indeed, and the fact that you think that flaws exist don't mean that they are there. You can do better than this Sam.

jennybean

i'm nearly 20 and decided about 5 years ago i was an atheist, my sister insisted i was just trying to be a "rebel" and would grow out of it. the same conversation came p a few weeks ago and she told me i as still tryin to be a rebel. its so annoying that she wont accept my beliefs yet i have to accept hers.

javaboy

bluewolf wrote: »

someone had to bring up the obviously designed banana eventually

"But it just fits right into my hand!"

Yeah it fits up your back passage (and front if you have one) too but I don't think the clergy would approve. :pac:

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to believe that the evolutionary process wasn't carried out by God, and that there was indeed a purpose behind it. I also have no reason to believe that the Big Bang wasn't carried out by God. It's much more reasonable than suggesting this happened all of it's own accord, and it's much more reasonable than suggesting that there is absolutely no purpose to our existence as human beings.

Are you sure you know what the word "reasonable" means?

Again, the assumption that evolution has somehow done away with God is absurd.

Evolution explains how humanity got here without resorting to supernatural explanations. Sure, we know how your computer operates without any divine intervention, but lets assume that God is making it go.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Evolution explains how humanity got here without resorting to supernatural explanations. Sure, we know how your computer operates without any divine intervention, but lets assume that God is making it go.

Not the best example. Computers operate with components that are designed by humans.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to believe that the evolutionary process wasn't carried out by God, and that there was indeed a purpose behind it. I also have no reason to believe that the Big Bang wasn't carried out by God. It's much more reasonable than suggesting this happened all of it's own accord, and it's much more reasonable than suggesting that there is absolutely no purpose to our existence as human beings.

There might be no reason to believe it wasn't carried out by god but remember what I said about the default position being to disbelieve?

It is not up to me to prove it wasn't done by god, it's up to you to prove it was. Evolution can explain the delicate balance of life and it doesn't require a god so your point of it being a stretch to believe this balance happened without a god has just been shown to be flawed. It doesn't prove god didn't do it but it shows that it is possible without god

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, and the fact that you think that flaws exist don't mean that they are there. You can do better than this Sam.

Let's put it this way, if there are no flaws in it then why has it not been accepted as scientific fact? You might argue that I see flaws where there are none but the entire scientific community?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's put it this way, if there are no flaws in it then why has it not been accepted as scientific fact? You might argue that I see flaws where there are none but the entire scientific community?

Sam, theology isn't science in the same way that history isn't science. Something can be real without being assessed by science.

This is an abuse of science, that has been promoted by atheists in particular. Science isn't intended to assess things outside of it's field. There is no flaw in Christianity scientifically because there is no objective proof concerning it. Rather simple. People may think that there are flaws in Christianity based on their own assessment, but if Christianity were objectively shown to be flawed nobody would believe in it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, theology isn't science in the same way that history isn't science. Something can be real without being assessed by science.

This is an abuse of science, that has been promoted by atheists in particular. Science isn't intended to assess things outside of it's field. There is no flaw in Christianity scientifically because there is no objective proof concerning it. Rather simple. People may think that there are flaws in Christianity based on their own assessment, but if Christianity were objectively shown to be flawed nobody would believe in it.

Your religion explains the origins of the universe and it explains why we are the way we are and why animals are the way they are. It does contain explanations of metaphysical things but it also explains scientific phenomena.

No science does not promote your definition of atheism, ie rejection of god but if a theory for the origins of the universe has shown itself to be flawless it will be accepted by science

So why has yours not been accepted if it is flawless?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your religion explains the origins of the universe. It does contain explanations of metaphysical things but it also explains scientific phenomena.

It explains the why not the how. Different assessments.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So why has yours not been accepted if it is flawless?

Sam, there are 2 billion Christians you know. So it has been accepted. It mightn't be accepted by you, but that's your subjective assessment of Christianity rather than anything objective.

Sam Vimes

also you say that if christianity was shown to be flawed then no one would believe in it so how do you explain the fact that billions of people around the world believe in other untrue religions?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It explains the why not the how. Different assessments.

It also explains the how, ie god did it. If that explanation is flawless why does everyone not accept it?

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, there are 2 billion Christians you know. So it has been accepted. It mightn't be accepted by you, but that's your subjective assessment of Christianity rather than anything objective.

And there are 4 billion non christians. They see the flaws

And there are dozens of branches of christianity. They can't even decide on what it's saying, much less declare it flawless

philologos

Other religions haven't been objectively proven to be false either. I believe other faiths to contain truth, but ultimately that Christianity is the ultimate truth. I base my acceptance of Christianity on how probable I think it is, and I think it is the most probable that God as depicted in Christianity exists.

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also you say that if christianity was shown to be flawed then no one would believe in it so how do you explain the fact that billions of people around the world believe in other untrue religions?

Funny that. I don't think I've ever met a religious person (or atheist for that matter) who taught his own take on the universe was wrong.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Other religions haven't been objectively proven to be false either. I believe other faiths to contain truth, but ultimately that Christianity is the ultimate truth. I base my acceptance of Christianity on how probable I think it is, and I think it is the most probable that God as depicted in Christianity exists.

Ah but that's not what you said. There is a difference between something probably being true and it being flawless, that's why everything in science stays as a theory and is never upgraded to fact. Scientists don't claim to have flawless explanations, you do

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah but that's not what you said. There is a difference between something probably being true and it being flawless, that's why everything in science stays as a theory and is never upgraded to fact. Scientists don't claim to have flawless explanations, you do

I didn't say anything concerning other religions Sam, but rather I've defended my own religion. So please don't be trying strawmen.

I don't believe Christianity to be flawed, I don't have any reason to consider it flawed, therefore I don't. It certainly isn't objectively flawed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And there are 4 billion non christians. They see the flaws

And there are dozens of branches of christianity. They can't even decide on what it's saying, much less declare it flawless

There wouldn't be believers of any religion if they were objectively proven to be false, so you're clearly talking nonsense.

I'm not interested in going around in circles Sam.

Actually for the most part, most denominations share a lot in common, it's only on minor issues where there is disagreement. Even then, many disagree really more on how they practice Christianity rather than the Biblical text.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't say anything concerning other religions Sam, but rather I've defended my own religion. So please don't be trying strawmen.

I don't believe Christianity to be flawed, I don't have any reason to consider it flawed, therefore I don't. It certainly isn't objectively flawed.

You said that if christianity was flawed then no one would believe in it. But people all over the world believe things that are not true and things that have been shown to be false, eg people who believed elvis was still alive. Saying people wouldn't believe it if it was flawed is bullsh!t

If something is flawless then only the most hardened, thick headed idiots wouldn't accept it but 4/6 of the world's population doesn't accept it. You might argue that it has not been shown to be flawed (you'd be wrong but you can argue it if you want) but equally it has not been shown to be flawless.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said that if christianity was flawed then no one would believe in it. But people all over the world believe things that are not true and things that have been shown to be false, eg people who believed elvis was still alive. Saying people wouldn't believe it if it was flawed is bullsh!t

Sam, this is a fruitless discussion. I've already explained my position on it.

(post 6000 )

Sam Vimes

and again, it's not actually up to me to prove it has flaws, it's up to you to prove it doesn't and that every other religion does, leaving your religion as the only possibility

condra

womoma wrote: »

If you are looking for a mind-numbing, childish, tit for tat, ad hominem argument, where misrepresenting your opponent and getting the last word are the most important factors, count me out. Try Sam Vimes

I see you took my advice Jakkass. Obviously a childish, pathetic argument is exactly what you want. Don't expect Sam to let you have the last word on anything.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with your equation of certain distortionist individuals to the entire Catholic Church.

I don't agree with your utterly pathetic misinterpretations and/or misrepresentations of everything your oponents say. Either you are continually jumping to false conclusions or are purposfully twisting other peoples points to the point of absurdity.
Either way, debating with you is pointless because you effectively cheat to suit yourself. How utterly childish.

In Europe yes, in the world no far from it. Christianity has been growing rapidly for the last few centuries in a global context.

I would never be so ignorant as to suggest that superstition is not rampant in USA.
However, I had assumed we were talking about Ireland. See the title of the thread.

God's existence is as real to me as the existence of any other being I see on a daily basis. There however is no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist.

There is no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Same goes for hundreds of other deitys invented by humans over the centurys. Your God was just in the right place at the right time, just like you were when you were born.

I'd be interested to hear why you are an atheist when it comes to other gods than the Abrahamic variety.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, this is a fruitless discussion. I've already explained my position on it.

(post 6000 )

And here's Jakkass yet again pulling out of a discussion he can't win with excuses

Maybe you've never seen the flaws because you refuse to see them. Ever think of that?

I bet you he'll still continue the discussion with people less able to point out the massive flaws in his logic though

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and again, it's not actually up to me to prove it has flaws, it's up to you to prove it doesn't and that every other religion does

Doesn't wash with me, I'll be holding you equally accountable in any discussion. It's not up to me to do anything.

If it was objectively proven to be false, I wouldn't be believing in it. Simple as, and it hasn't been objectively proven, therefore I find it reasonable that I'll continue believing in it, as I have freedom of conscience to do so.

If it's not going to progress any more on this line of discussion apart from going around in circles. I'm calling it a day here.

Sam Vimes

womoma wrote: »

I see you took my advice Jakkass. Obviously a childish, pathetic argument is exactly what you want. Don't expect Sam to let you have the last word on anything.

Ah yes I remember you now. The guy who took the piss out of me so he wouldn't have to admit he bought the wrong product and then blamed the manufacturer :rolleyes:

No one was fooled by you continuing to post while simultaneously taking the piss out of me for continuing to post btw

But that's off topic......

condra

It's great to see this discussion in After Hours.

I like to see people being encouraged to consider their theological stance who might not otherwise do so.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Thinking is anathema to religion.

condra

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah yes I remember you now. The guy who took the piss out of me..

It was funny though. You really take the internet very seriously.

But that's off topic.....

Yep. Let's forget about it. The Jakkass show is far too entertaining anyway.

philologos

womoma wrote: »

So its contraception all round, healthy doses of critical enquiry, more transparent people in power, and safer bottoms for the kids.

I'll be fair then, explain this section of your post.

Sam Vimes

Edit:nvm, it hurts my head

bleg

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be fair then, explain this section of your post.

horny priests being forced to suppress their natural urge to procreate + altar boys = molestation.

get rid of the causative factor (the religious dogma that says priests must not use their penis) and you have less cases of child molestation.

condra

< See this Sam guy Jakkass? As far as underhanded debating tactics go, he's worse than you.

RE - "safer bottoms for the kids"

Jakkass wrote: »

explain this section of your post.

If you read back a couple of pages (before you and Sam got into your bit of "I know you are but what am I?") I already explained my reasoning behind that statement.

In short, I think a lower proportion of children will be abused as the church loses its influence over education. This is already happening. In my parents generation, the proportion of kids who were in some way abused by a priest or nun is very substantial. The Murphy report is going to be very interesting indeed, and will be more egg on the already scrambled face of the RCC.

Again, I don't think all priests are child molesters, and I don't think this grim situation has much baring over the debate as to wether or not God exists.

However, I don't think it is wise to mix sexually frustrated men with children, so for that reason, (among others) I am glad to see the decline of the RCC.

You still haven't addressed this:

I'd be interested to hear why you are an atheist when it comes to other gods than the Abrahamic variety.