Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »Jakkass rest assured I never agree with you man. What I'm applauding is how well you convinced yourself how absolutely logical and water tight your point of view regardless of the countless times you've been showed otherwise.
I'd say the same for you
CerebralCortex wrote: »You may not have intended offense I'll never know but thats certainly how it came off to me.
I can assure you I certainly didn't. It just depends on how much you trust me I guess.CerebralCortex wrote: »I agree up to a point but we're (well my self at least) are not the ones making claims of knowledge about the truth of existence on zero evidence. As I said though I applaud Jakkass ability to persist.
I'd argue that neither has done this. Atheists argue they have indication for their viewpoint, and Christians argue that they have indication for theirs. Indication is really evidence by implication. What implies to me that this is the truth is the only real main point of discussion we can come from in a discussion like this where there is quite a good bit of ambiguity otherwise.I don't see how atheism (a non belief in something) can be subject to the same criticism. Can you criticize atheism please?
Anyone who puts forward a position on any particular issue is subject to criticism for said position. I could criticise atheism if I really wanted, but I am here to try and understand more instead of just getting into another waste of a discussion here that will end up with a lot of people getting hot and bothered. You can understand that right considering the recent failures of discussion here.
Kipperhell: I'd like to discuss the topic rather than discuss your view of me (which would be an ad-hominem) or with how you think I conduct my discussion. It's wholly irrelevant. Even in terms of Wicknight we have been sharing our opinions and I have been considering what he says. I don't agree with him, but I want to see where he is coming from more. Then again who on earth has discussions with people just to get the other to agree. There is more to talk than this.0 -
I'd say the same for you
Care to publish this conclusive, undeniable evidence that god exists you have?Atheists argue they have indication for their viewpoint.
I find most of the time I argue against the indications of the religious. I mean as an atheist what indicators am I looking for? That said when anybody provides a suitable indicator of any god I am no longer an atheist. You will of course say that there are plenty worthy indicators but if that were the case why would you bother trying to understand the atheist point of view as you claim to be doing here. All I need to understand about the Xtian position is that it requires faith.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
For me there would have to be absolute proof. No matter how much so called evidence by indication you have there will always be an element of believing because you want to believe as opposed to believing because it's been shown to be true. I don't consider faith, ie belief without evidence, to be an admirable quality.
I don't think that faith does mean belief without evidence. If you replaced the word evidence with "proof" then that would be more useful at least from my understanding of it. What is indicated to you from various different sources is still very much evidence, it just isn't proof. So yes that's fine.So why do you argue about religion on Boards so damn often?
Well, for a number of reasons. To clear up misconceptions about the Christian faith that I hear, to see how other people think, and to share my understanding of the world with other people primarily. It challenges me to find out answers to questions I've never thought about. The scrutiny of an atheist is beneficial to Christian faith. Additionally because I'm somewhat interested in it.I don't think people who claim to have had 'religious experiences' really understand just how severely the human mind can deceived.
Do you? If so please elaborate on this further.Either way, this shows that religious belief cannot be arrived at through study, arguments etc., but by random 'experiences'.
I'd agree with this much. However faith can be aided by reason, and if faith is without reason it is well and truly blind.With this established, why consider your pursuit of debate with atheists?
See above 0 -
-
Stercus Accidit wrote: »Relevance to my statement? 'self contradictory', example, 'eye for an eye', 'turn the other cheek'
Yes "turn the other cheek" was Jesus fulfilling the previous commandment. It makes that perfectly clear in the New Testament. He even says that the prophets told you "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth a life for a life", but I tell you "turn the other cheek". This is the New Covenant fulfilling the Old Covenant. If you don't see the explanation for why the Scriptures are the way they are of course they will seem that way.Stercus Accidit wrote: »Now, these are completely plucked out of thin air, If you sat a bible or some other holy book in front of me, I could likely with a matter of minutes find several 'self contradictory' statements.
I'm sure you could by misinterpreting it.Stercus Accidit wrote: »They can be logical about many things, but fear of death, the unknown, hard realities of life can lead many to overlook this logic when looking at their indoctrinated superstitious beliefs.
Again I don't get the fear of death excuse. It's not a major part of my faith. Even if there was no afterlife in Christianity I still would hold to the virtues that Jesus taught. It's hardly the primary reason for my faith anyway.Stercus Accidit wrote: »If he rose from the dead, he is a zombie, zombies are reanimated corpses :P
Sorry, but seriously, worship of a dead mans words and deeds so long ago and by so many differing accounts, with no evidence other than these 2000 year old accounts of these amazing miracles as you put it, is just not sensible IMO, as above, logic issue.
Fair enough on the zombie definition.
Carrying on however you have to note that Christians don't believe that Jesus has died but rather the Church on earth is the body of Christ.
Why not follow the ethical commands of Jesus, or what can you find wrong with them? That would probably be best in another thread. Feel free to start one in the Christianity forum if you want
Bear in mind, without descending into the "logic" rhethoric. What is logical for one may not be logical for another.
The Bible even makes this clear, the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18). Every time I come onto this forum this makes more and more sense.Stercus Accidit wrote: »There is a lovely thread on the Christianity forum that says otherwise, everyone is going to burn in hell bar those who are christian devout, or unaware of christianity at all, bless them. (though I thought they were also meant to go to hell, or was it limbo, but of course limbo was a tester by the church which they scrapped, so did it ever exist?)
This decision is up to God. Your life is not over there is plenty of opportunity for you to seek God later on in your life. As such I don't think it's appropriate to tell you or anyone else that they are going to hell. We have been revealed that if you reject Jesus in public, He will reject you before the Father. We don't know about those who haven't heard Christ at all, I trust that God as a righteous judge will make the correct judgement.Stercus Accidit wrote: »But wars over religion involving chritianity have occured, yes?
I don't think the Crusades or the Inquisition involved true Christianity as Jesus thought it. They did involve human greed. Corrupt men did horrible things in the name of God. I consider both these acts and other acts abhorrent.
However I don't think Christianity is accountable for this any more than I think that atheism is accountable for Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and Pol Pot and their acts in the 20th century. Fair enough point, no?
Apologies for not replying, I didn't see your post until just then.0 -
-
-
-
-
Well ok let's clarify. The amount of evidence I require is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the event. For example I have learned that St Patrick came to Ireland in 432. I don't need to have that to be absolutely proven to me for two reasons:
That's fine, I don't have any issue with that.It's enough for me that it has been recorded. However it is also claimed that he banished the snakes from Ireland. That claim requires more than simply reading it in a book because:- There is no indication that there ever were snakes in Ireland
- It seems unlikely that one man could remove all the snakes
As for the snakes, it isn't reported on in any piece of literature that is attributed to Patrick himself from what I can recall from looking at Patricks Confessions. We also have reason to suspect that Christianity existed in Ireland before his arrival too. Again, no problem understanding this.To get to religion, if you want to tell me that there was a man called Jesus who lived around 0 AD who had disciples and preached a message of peace I would most likely be willing to accept a book that claimed such because that all seems very plausible. This is where evidence by indication is useful. However, if you want to claim that he walked on water, healed the sick and was raised from the dead you're going to need a lot more than a 2000 year old book claiming as much. You must first show that such things are even possible before you can start to give indication that they happened in the past.
Of course I would need more than a 2000 year old book to claim such. Many people have argued for miracles without basing it on the Christian text, but looking outside and reasoning it logically. I personally had issues with accepting miracles, however C.S Lewis did make a lot of sense about it and how the supernatural manifests itself in a natural world. Hence upon finding that reasonable I adopted such an understanding as it was very well explained. So yes, I think that you are fine to have this standard for miracles. Of course one needs to have assurance that such things are possible before one believes in such things. Again I have no argument with you here.For example if you prove to me that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed all that indicates to me is that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed. A good first step would be to show that it couldn't have been destroyed by an earthquake, a hurricane or a flood as common sense would suggest
Yes, it's a minor indication of Biblical validity, it doesn't prove that God exists, or that every other claim in the Bible is true. I never actually argued this ever when I used such a point in the past. It does mean that the Bible does contain some truth. As I've also said, it's one of many indications one can have for Christianity.To quote David Hume: "We should only believe in a miracle if the possibility of the witness being deceived or lying would be more "miraculous."
Yes Hume was a good philosopher I will say that for him. It is also best we remember what bias he had. I think some of his stuff on the cosmological and teleological arguments are very good in thinking about their shortcomings. (I must consult the philosophy of religion book I have again soon). 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Maybe replace the Bible with the Jefferson Bible.
I had a feeling that someone would say something like this. Removing everything about God wouldn't make it a religion anymore. Jefferson's Bible is an interesting read to see what he left in and what he removed, however it's not a touch on the real thing.What did he say about them?
I could go on and on about it here, or I could give you some material to read. I don't particularly want to discuss evidence on this thread as it could get messy. This topic is far better than the same boring old arguments we get into about evidence.
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdfWell of course the bible contains some truth. No one has ever suggested that every single word in it was made up. It would be ridiculous for the story of Sodom to be based on a fictional city instead of an actual place that was actually destroyed. I'd see it the same way some people blamed hurricane Katrina on the gay accepting lifestyle in New Orleans. These bigots exist even in the 21st century so of course they existed 2000 years ago when such claims carried more weight
That's a fair point actually. If the Sodom incident were isolated on it's own it would not give much credence to God having been behind it. I can recognise that much. However if you had multiple instances or additional indications that could be verified would one eventually start to consider that it could be more than a coincidence?The only parts of the bible that I am interested in seeing the evidence for are the miraculous parts and proving Sodom does not indicate anything supernatural unless you can also show that it couldn't have been destroyed by a natural disaster. To use the old theist argument: "you can't prove it wasn't an earthquake!"
What theist argument?
As for the Bible and miracles. I wouldn't consider them the parts I am most interested in anyway. I'm more interested in the message and the practical implications it could have on my life. I've always been minded that kind of way towards the Bible since I started to read it.0 -
I'll have a readI could go on and on about it here, or I could give you some material to read. I don't particularly want to discuss evidence on this thread as it could get messy. This topic is far better than the same boring old arguments we get into about evidence.
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf
I don't consider the whole Sodom thing as evidence at all, even an indication. I carries zero weight with me so no matter how many things of equal weight you had, the evidence would still add up to zero. When talking about claims of walking on water and raising from the dead, many weak indications to not make a strong indication. You have to show that these things are possible before you can use arguments like "they couldn't have lied". I know lying is possible so I'll always go to that conclusion before I go to a supernatural one. These weak indications will never, ever be convincing to me.That's a fair point actually. If the Sodom incident were isolated on it's own it would not give much credence to God having been behind it. I can recognise that much. However if you had multiple instances or additional indications that could be verified would one eventually start to consider that it could be more than a coincidence?
If, however, you had one piece of compelling evidence that I could accept, I might accept these weak indications after the fact. Once you show that miracles are possible my requirement for proof for these events would drop because they would then fit with the known universe. But I will never accept them on their own
The argument "You can't prove God doesn't exist". you've used a variation of it yourself when you said there's nothing to suggest that God didn't have a hand in evolution. The obvious response being "there's nothing to suggest he did either"What theist argument?As for the Bible and miracles. I wouldn't consider them the parts I am most interested in anyway. I'm more interested in the message and the practical implications it could have on my life. I've always been minded that kind of way towards the Bible since I started to read it.
In terms of how I live my life I'm the same. The philosophy of Jesus is a very good one to live your life by. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the golden rule of morality. The only problem I have is the whole supernatural side and the idea that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe in their book etc. I think Thomas Jefferson would agree when I say:Christianity is great once you take the religious parts out0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why?
This time in history is no more special than things that have happened in the past. I find the phrase "there is nothing new under the sun" to be quite poignant in this case. People have professed the same things that you have professed about Christianity, they fell flat. There have been religious revivals, and religious decline in the past. This is nothing new or nothing special by my book.I would be surprised if this didn't happen. Possibly not in my lifetime, but within the next few hundred years. There is only so far organised religions like Christianity can survive in a society progressively marching forward in terms of education and living standard.
I remember PDN had a quote from the 1960's that suggested that religion would be truly gone by the 1980's apart from a small cluster of believers. It just shows how wrong peoples estimates or hunches can be. I have no reason to believe that this time is any different than any other in history. I also have no reason to believe that this would last for a few decades.
Let me continue on your post about "progressively". You do realise that progressive is at the eyes of the beholder, as is "moving forward". I consider Christianisation to be progressive in terms of how it provokes us to act towards one another. It's an ideology that is forward thinking. That's my honest view on it. Of course your view that Christianity is regressive is a product of your atheism and mine is the product of Christianity. As such what use is waffling on about "progression", "regression", "forward" or "backward" going to be for any of us? You have to admit these terms can be thrown around like a ragdoll in discussions.There already has been. People seem to be confusing the rise of fundamentalist religion with a rise in religion as a whole. Religious belief is falling. This is being matched by the fundamentalisation of those who are hanging on. As religious belief falls religious people get more vocal and extreme, precisely because of the feeling that their religion is being eroded and under threat.
Well Wicknight, you yourself conceded that there was a rise in religious belief worldwide a few posts ago. It is very much the case especially with Christianity and Islam. Moderate religious belief is also growing in some sectors and in others it is declining. I don't see the threat to global Christianity at all apart from that we are going to find that African members of the church and Asian members of the church are going to wield more influence in global Christian affairs. If you look at the Anglican Church currently you will see that this is very much true concerning the Global South and the homosexual ministers / women ministers debate. I'm not sure if your hypothesis is entirely correct, but we can both discern certain trends I think.Well that is possible. Something like a world wide pandemic certainly might reverse things and bring people back to religion.
Why is a pandemic necessary? There have been several religious reawakenings around the world particularly in the 19th leading into 20th century in the USA. You know that in the early colonisation that religious attendance was actually very low in the USA. Infact on a quick google this source suggests that religious attendance in the USA was as low as 17% in 1776. If that isn't revival compared to contemporary Christianity there I don't know what is. I have no reason to assume that this isn't possible anywhere else in the world.But in the grand scheme of things I think there is little reason to view this decline as a blimp on the human time scale. The correlations are there, increase living standards, increase education, increase science, increase the spread of ideas and openness to challenge ideas, and organised religion falls.
Why though? Religion rises, religion falls, atheism rises, atheism falls. This is really nothing new. Example after example can show you cases of this. How come increases of living standards in some areas of the world have also resulted in Christianisation if it is true that increasing standards, increasing education and science leads to the fall of organised religion. Surely the USA or South Korea should cause you to think twice about that notion.Again though I would point out I'm not necessarily equating this with a rise in atheism.
Of course.It has been declining in these societies for quite a long time now from a starting point of almost complete acceptance.
This isn't the case for all free societies.Korea is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Christianity may be growing in Korea but nearly 50% of the population adhere to no organised religion. Christianity is growing among the religious group that is quickly heading towards being a minority as over all religious subscription falls.
Yes, but people didn't adhere to organised religion before missionaries started to arrive there. Therefore it shows that in free societies that religion can increase and religion can have it's place. You seem to suggest that Christianity is opposed to freedom when it actually encourages freedom.That isn't really the issue. The question is will your children feel the same need for religion. Or their children? Will the arguments for Christianity make sense to them as they make sense to you?
We are discussing hypothetical children here but I have no reason why this possibility could not happen with any potential children or grandchildren that I happen to have. I don't see how education is a hindrance, because well I don't have much fear that my faith will be destroyed by the time I graduate from university. Most of the reasons you give for people being more likely to reject religion are ultimately inaccurate. Again, you could say that people studying science are less likely to have faith. I know several people at my university who are Christians some of them are doing phD's in biology, some of them are starting off in science degrees. This bears no difficulty for them. I am technically also studying a science degree (Computer Science but through Arts this year, will be doing it single honours next year). There is nothing that would stop healthy faith forming in a society like ours if we decide to teach it the right way.Yes but there is a point behind the ridicule. A lot of stuff we hold on to, particularly religious belief, we hold on to for reasons other than because it makes sense and is sensible. Ridicule can highlight this, turn the mirror back on people. This applies to atheists as much as anyone.
I really don't care what point you convince yourself that justifies ridicule of Christianity. As I say feel free, your questioning only encourages one thing for me, and that is to seek answers for myself. I have found that it has strengthened my faith, and I thank you for what you and others have done to strengthen my faith even if it was implicit. I remember my first discussions with you, and how they were rather shaky as I was first coming to Christianity then (in 2007). I probably shouldn't have even been discussing this with you or anyone else at that time, but I did, in many cases it solidified my opinions on certain matters.I've read books that expand upon Lewis and found these not only bad but in some cases seem to miss the point of Lewis himself, which was a bit odd.
In some cases the openings of his books can be in quite complex language. I had to read the start of Miracles 3 times before I started to get the point that he was trying to put forward.I've never heard any apologetic argument that could not be dismantled within 5 minutes by anyone who has a basic understanding of Dawkins or Harris, let alone the atheist heavy weights.
The reverse of this statement is probably also factually accurate given the refutations of the God Delusion that Allister McGrath has managed to put forward.Ultimately the apologetic arguments seem to me to be appealing to emotion rather than reason. They are an attempt to give believers who want to believe something to hang on to, rather than an actual argument for belief. It reminds me a lot of the Creationists. To the Creationist movement what seems most important is the idea that there is a debate taking place over things like evolution or carbon dating. This allows them to rationalise their beliefs. Things are undecided, things are up in the air, there are two sides, there is evidence for and against, nothing is set yet, both sides have theories. I can still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and tell myself that this has not been ruled out yet.
There is nothing emotional about Lewis or anyone else that I have tried to read, or anyone who I have indeed watched. Would you mind giving examples of this instead of merely claiming so.Christian apologetics seems similar to this. What seems to matter more than the arguments themselves is simply that they exist, allow people to say that there are arguments in support of their beliefs. I would support this assertion some what by the fact that any time I've debated Christian arguments the Christians seem utterly uninterested in any of the flaws in these arguments.
They do exist, just as much as atheist arguments against God's existence do, I'm not quite getting the point you are trying to get to yet. I am willing to listen to the flaws in these arguments and accept them as flaws if they are flaws. I personally am interested in the truth, and Christianity seems to be most probably the truth from my perspective at the minute.Bring all that back to this thread itself, I think the effect of Christian apologetics to put forward a convincing argument for faith to people who have not already accepted is severely diminished as more people openly discuss these arguments including the flaws in them and gain education into alternative understand through things like science. A lot of religion's power is in explaining things we don't understand.
Yes, I will wait for you to give examples of these flaws first, otherwise it is meaningless.
Religions power is answering the why. Atheists don't seem interested in this, hence why I find it rather difficult to relate to atheist arguments. The why doesn't really matter to atheists. It matters a lot to the Christian. I'm a why kind of guy I guess.I would agree, but it is a very common response on the Christian forum, people being told to spend time with Christians as if this demonstrates the truth of the claims of the religion.
Well I can tell you that it is not a great argument many times. I would point anyone to look at Jesus Christs life. I'm nowhere near as good an example as He is for the Christian faith.Not in the slightest. I do find it absurd that we would expect someone to know themselves what is happening to them when they experience spiritual feelings. We would not expect this for physical feelings (My doctor says that pain in my back is cancer but I'm pretty sure it is something else), why we think individuals are capable of self diagnosing their own mental experiences I've no idea.
I do think that humans are relatively good witnesses for what is happening to them and how they feel about certain things. I'm not saying that my diagnosis is superior to anyone elses, but given what is currently coming to light about religious experience in the frontal lobe and so on this doesn't give any credence to the fact that God doesn't exist, not does it even indicate it. Science only concerns with "hows", and that's where the limitation is drawn. Just because we have an explanation of how doesn't mean we shouldn't seek out the why.That wasn't really my point. Evolution explains human emotions and moral systems very well, why we have morals, why we feel emotions such as love, why some of us are violent or "evil".
I'm an advocate for keeping evolution out of moral theory. That's more a philosophical question than a biological question. Infact I don't think evolution should be involved in assessing other areas of academia at all. Keep evolution in biology. Morals can be explained without it and are more properly explained without it if you look to moral philosophy and what people are theorising about it.This relegates Christian explanations, for example the Fall, to a diminished position of unnecessary and unsupported speculation.
I have yet to see how this is the case.Yes but that is just the same as saying there will always be people who don't totally accept evolution. So it isn't really that evolution and Christianity are compatible, it is that some people pick and choose what parts of evolution they accept and which they don't
This is a matter of Biblical interpretation rather than just "picking and choosing". You'll find that theistic evolutionists hold to Genesis 1 just as much as Young Earth Creationists do. They question the text itself from the Hebrew to see if the Young Earth Creationist is assessing it properly. Yes, it's contended but both hold to the same passage equally. I don't ridicule other understandings of Genesis 1 however. I personally don't claim to know everything about the way the world began but what I do feel is that it is possible that God could have orchestrated evolution given the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" which is generally translated to "day" but can mean "age" or a longer period of time.It isn't trying to, but it does explain why humans make efforts to establish moral theories in the first place. It explains where our basic instinct for morality comes from, rather than invoking God to explain this. It explains why we all have a sense of right and wrong.
It explains the how perhaps. I'd argue that Christianity does explain the why for me, but that it can also be explained in secular discourse too. We can explain it perfectly fine without invoking evolution however. Infact I'd contend we can explain it much better without invoking evolution.Well there is if you look at who these atheists are and why they are converting. For example the middle classes in China converting to Christianity are not equivalent to middle classes in Europe abandoning Christianity.
Please elaborate on this point. I'm curious as to why you don't think they are equivalent.And since the Enlightenment membership in organised religion has been declining in the Western world.
This isn't the case I've given you examples to the contrary.I'm interested in a lot of things Jakkass. I find humans and human behaviour fascinating.
As do I actuallyIt is nothing to do with co-existing. The humans aren't going any where, they are simply rejecting religion.
Some are rejecting it, many more are accepting it.Lot of points there, will try to get to the rest soon
No rush, I've enjoyed the discussion so farYou're the one who's claiming there is a "why?"
Our brains just happen to have evolved that way as far as I'm concerned. Naturally profound experiences don't have to have a purpose any more than our appendix has to have a purpose.
I just cannot have this understanding of the universe. I am interested in seeking out why the world is the way it is and I believe that these can be explained. You on the other hand reject that this is even a worthwhile practice. It's funny how people can be satisfied intellectually in very different ways.
Sam Vimes: I'm not going to get into a complete argument about a PDF file explaining very briefly the book. I'd suggest picking up the actual book at your local library or whatever and reading it for yourself.Name one incident in the history of humanity that has been verified as an act of God.
Apologies bad use of terms. I concede that.If every time something happens, such as a natural disaster, it is attributed to God it is hardly surprising you will get a long list of disasters attributed to God.
This is something I'm going to need to think about more myself. I don't have answers to every single thing that is thrown at me. I hope you understand
EDIT:Your responses to posts can, on occasion, be framed in terms which carry over-tones of character development of the original poster; creating implicit straw-men, if you will.
I think I dealt with the situation adequately. My terminology might have come across as strong but that can happen on this forum. I've already said that no offence was intended to be caused by that comment, however I do believe it to be the reality of the situation.
Kipperhell: Are you really that desperate to get people not to speak to me on this thread? Lighten up. I'm just having a back and forth. There are no ulterior motives involved whatsoever 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement