Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

Zombrex;
Christianity is stupid.

No one ever said otherwise, 'foolishness in the eyes of the world' is the bible quote I think.
All I ever said is that to argue that intelligent people are atheist therefore atheism is right, is no more than an argument from authority.
We know it foolish to be a Christian, we know how stupid it looks.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

No one ever said otherwise, 'foolishness in the eyes of the world' is the bible quote I think.
...
We know it foolish to be a Christian, we know how stupid it looks.

Appearing stupid to people who don't know any better, and actually being stupid are two different things. Quantum physics appears stupid if you don't know the research and evidence that went into formulating it. Astrology is just stupid.

If you are happy that Christianity is just stupid, rather than appears stupid to those who don't know any better, then yes we agree. Though I'm not sure you will get many other Christians agreeing with that.

tommy2bad wrote: »

All I ever said is that to argue that intelligent people are atheist therefore atheism is right, is no more than an argument from authority.

I'm not sure that was the argument. I think it was more along the lines of Christianity is stupid, therefore people who are intelligent are less likely to accept that it is true.

My point was that this ignores how particularly appealing the story is made to appear specifically to humans, independently to how rational or logical it is.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Replace it with the while, because it may happen multiple times in the sequence. While it is true do x. Or if you're certain it's going to happen at least once use a do while

You would not use a while because something may happen multiple times in sequence. You use a while because you want to keep doing something until something else changes.

You are both wrong.

AS a christian you might only ever need to invoke Corinthians once, or you may never need to invoke. What is the point the while statement then?

Potentially you could be hogging a thread that has need to be hogged.

cheap digital slr cameras

gvn wrote: »

The type of free will you speak about is analogous to pointing a gun at somebody's head and giving them the choice to do one of two things; if they chose the right choice you let them live, but if they chose the wrong one you shoot them. That's not free will.

People may have different perspective on how to look to God. However, for us, Christians, believing in God, He had already predestined all things. His child is His, and no matter what, will still be His. It is not the choice of man but the will of God for His every child. Not all people are saved. Some are already predestined to death.

cheap digital slr cameras

I can't say I was expecting to see one of my posts from yonks ago quoted. :pac:

cheap digital slr cameras wrote: »

People may have different perspective on how to look to God. However, for us, Christians, believing in God, He had already predestined all things. His child is His, and no matter what, will still be His. It is not the choice of man but the will of God for His every child. Not all people are saved. Some are already predestined to death.

My theological knowledge is quite limited, but would that be a Calvinist view point? Or is a belief in predestination a component of a lot of churches? Is it fair to say that a belief in predestination is completely exclusive to a belief in free will--i.e. that both are mutually exclusive?

I won't even bother with the belief that some people are predestined to Hell. Such a belief is about as horrible as they come, in my own view.

indioblack

cheap digital slr cameras wrote: »

People may have different perspective on how to look to God. However, for us, Christians, believing in God, He had already predestined all things. His child is His, and no matter what, will still be His. It is not the choice of man but the will of God for His every child. Not all people are saved. Some are already predestined to death.

Terrifying - mind you, on a lesser level, it could be argued that predestination renders this thread redundant.

J C

I used to believe in pre-destination ... until, one morning, my bus broke down before reaching my destination!!!!:)

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Appearing stupid to people who don't know any better, and actually being stupid are two different things. Quantum physics appears stupid if you don't know the research and evidence that went into formulating it. Astrology is just stupid.

If you are happy that Christianity is just stupid, rather than appears stupid to those who don't know any better, then yes we agree. Though I'm not sure you will get many other Christians agreeing with that.



I'm not sure that was the argument. I think it was more along the lines of Christianity is stupid, therefore people who are intelligent are less likely to accept that it is true.

My point was that this ignores how particularly appealing the story is made to appear specifically to humans, independently to how rational or logical it is.

Not sure if I agree that it's stupid but it is counterintuitive.
Hold on That wasn't his argument, his was, intelligent people don't believe in God therefore the probability is that their is no God. Their is no correlation between what people believe and its truth. What would matter is not who believed it but the data to support the claim.

I don't care what smart people believe, I care what the validity of their claims are. In the case of religion their is no data to support either side only a belief. I think they and I are entitled to believe what convinces us.

Came across this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence It might shed some light.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not sure if I agree that it's stupid but it is counterintuitive.
Hold on That wasn't his argument, his was, intelligent people don't believe in God therefore the probability is that their is no God. Their is no correlation between what people believe and its truth. What would matter is not who believed it but the data to support the claim.

I don't care what smart people believe, I care what the validity of their claims are. In the case of religion their is no data to support either side only a belief. I think they and I are entitled to believe what convinces us.

Came across this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence It might shed some light.

This is a graph of two distinct patterns ... countries that have less than 5% who don't believe in God ... where average IQ's range from 60 to 100 with a vertical trend line i.e no correlation between IQ and religiosity ... and countries that have 5-80% who don't believe in God ... where the trend line is flat i.e. no correlation between religiosity and IQ

Apart from the argument that people with high IQs may not be geniuses ... just geniuses at taking IQ Tests ... nothing seems to be proven by the graph ... except, perhaps, that there is no correlation between religiosity and IQ ... and vice versa!!!:)

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not sure if I agree that it's stupid but it is counterintuitive.
Hold on That wasn't his argument, his was, intelligent people don't believe in God therefore the probability is that their is no God. Their is no correlation between what people believe and its truth. What would matter is not who believed it but the data to support the claim.

I don't care what smart people believe, I care what the validity of their claims are. In the case of religion their is no data to support either side only a belief.

What do you mean by "no data"? Do you mean no data saying God doesn't exist, or no data supporting disbelief in Christianity?

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

What do you mean by "no data"? Do you mean no data saying God doesn't exist, or no data supporting disbelief in Christianity?

... CFSI !!!!:)

There is nothing so devastating to an argument as a stubborn fact.:)

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

What do you mean by "no data"? Do you mean no data saying God doesn't exist, or no data supporting disbelief in Christianity?

I mean no data either for or against the existence of God. From a believers POV the evidence supports it, from an atheist POV the same evidence proves something else.
It's not a testable hypothesis, I cant think of anyway we can prove God exists short of the second coming. neither can we prove a negative. What we do is weigh the options and go with what rings true for us.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I mean no data either for or against the existence of God. From a believers POV the evidence supports it, from an atheist POV the same evidence proves something else.
It's not a testable hypothesis, I cant think of anyway we can prove God exists short of the second coming. neither can we prove a negative. What we do is weigh the options and go with what rings true for us.

You would agree I hope though that you don't need to demonstrate God doesn't exist to demonstrate that humans are prone to making up concepts like gods and are prone to believing particular stories if they match a particular pattern, prone to accepting supernatural explanations without evidence etc etc

Using the astrology analogy, I'm pretty confident one can demonstrate astrology is hokum without demonstrating, or even attempting to demonstrate, that the planets are not actually magically controlling the future, an hypothesis that is probably untestable.

In a lot of ways showing God doesn't exist is rather irrelevant to atheism.

tommy2bad

In a lot of ways showing God doesn't exist is rather irrelevant to atheism.

Yes Zombrex, I agree but it would seem that atheists divide between the ones who say their is no god at all of any kind and those who say no interventionist gods.
And then their are the ones who say religion is the problem, as if religion came from somewhere outside human invention like a virus, or shock horror; imposed by a outside force.
I think both sides would benefit from being cleared on what they are for and against.

indioblack

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes Zombrex, I agree but it would seem that atheists divide between the ones who say their is no god at all of any kind and those who say no interventionist gods.
And then their are the ones who say religion is the problem, as if religion came from somewhere outside human invention like a virus, or shock horror; imposed by a outside force.
I think both sides would benefit from being cleared on what they are for and against.

It might be that athiests have the simpler statement to make - "there is no god". Many would go no further than that.
For those who would continue their train of thinking in this business they would deny the possibility of a concious omnipotent god.
As has been mentioned before, one problem is the definition of god - his remit, parameters, properties, abitities. The problem being that this is subjective.
It is possible to cherrypick, conciously or otherwise, the attributes of god - even within an organised religious framework.
Many years ago I had a debate with an elderly relative, a devout Christian, and we wandered onto the subject of the bible. "Oh, we don't take much notice of that". And that was the end of that.
My thinking was, "but where else does your church get it's authority from?"
It can be subjective on the other side, too - "I don't think/believe there is a god"
A definition of god - something asked for on page 2 of this thread, if I remember rightly.

tommy2bad

Well one of the problems with discussion, indeed casual conversation, is when someone says something the hearer thinks 'what did they mean by that'. The old joke about the guy who's response to "nice day" is "whats he getting at"

indioblack

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well one of the problems with discussion, indeed casual conversation, is when someone says something the hearer thinks 'what did they mean by that'. The old joke about the guy who's response to "nice day" is "whats he getting at"

Actually, when I read your reply, my first thought was exactly that - "what's he getting at?"
Healthy paranoia - you can't beat it.
Seriously, this relative of mine was not one to pursue the subject too deeply. She had her beliefs and that was an end of it. She was an intelligent person, but this subject was concluded - she was too old to change and, in fairness, her religion had given her comfort and reassurance in what had been a sometimes difficult life for her. Also, she was raised in a time when there appears to have been little debate of the sort started by this thread.
She was, essentially, a good person.
Actually, that's worthy of a little digression here.
Basically a good person, how much of that was reinforced by her own beliefs?
On reflection, more information would be required about her, her beliefs and her circumstances to come to an opinion.
In general, though, it might be worth consideration.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

where the trend line is flat i.e. no correlation between religiosity and IQ

That's not how regression or correlation works.



You can obviously see there is a slight increasing trend in a lot of that picture.

I think the point you're trying to make is right, whole thing is completely flawed - for a lot of reasons - but come on JC...

zenno

This is interesting.., Might be of interest to you folks...

Tim Robbins

A range of leading academics who dismiss the notion of God...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceHh5khkXo

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A range of leading academics who dismiss the notion of God...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceHh5khkXo

It opens with the following very telling comment ... "most scientists don't think enough about God to know whether they believe in Him or not"!!!!

This is an argument from ignorace and is a logical fallacy ... just like all of the other superficially plausible reasons proffered for not believing in God ... they fall asunder under detailed examination!!!:)

Tim Robbins

J C wrote: »

It opens with the following very telling comment ... "most scientists don't think enough about God to know whether they believe in Him or not"!!!!

This is an argument from ignorace and is a logical fallacy ... just like all of the other superficially plausible reasons proffered for not believing in God ... they fall asunder under detailed examination!!!:)

That statement is not actually an argument for or against the existence of God. It's a suggestion why most scientists don't know whether they believe in him or not.

pauldla

J C wrote: »

It opens with the following very telling comment ... "most scientists don't think enough about God to know whether they believe in Him or not"!!!!

This is an argument from ignorace and is a logical fallacy ... just like all of the other superficially plausible reasons proffered for not believing in God ... they fall asunder under detailed examination!!!:)

All superficially plausible arguments against the existence of god are, well, superficially plausible. That is true, if not a tad obvious. This does not mean, however, that all arguments against the existence of god are superficially plausible, as you seem to be claiming (not meaning to put words in your mouth, of course).

I believe we have dealt with burden of proof elsewhere on this thread...? To restate a memorable argument, if I claim I have the worlds largest collection of air guitars, surely it falls to me to prove that I do?

philologos

I don't think Tim sees the fallacy. I could easily find 50 Christian academics. You're right Jimi who cares. I'd rather see his arguments against Christianity.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

I don't think Tim sees the fallacy. I could easily find 50 Christian academics. You're right Jimi who cares. I'd rather see his arguments against Christianity.

Sorry Phil, deleted my post before you posted Just thought, 'ye know what, he's just trolling, its not even that he does care. He's just letting off steam.' So I deleted it

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

I don't think Tim sees the fallacy. I could easily find 50 Christian academics. You're right Jimi who cares. I'd rather see his arguments against Christianity.

Is this a competition to see who can find the most academics of their persuasion? I don't recall any challenge of such nature; indeed, it would strike me as a tad pointless. What is the significance of finding 50 Christian academics? Did any say that you could not?

philologos

Ask Tim. Personally I think its a rubbish argument. Unless we get into the nitty gritty of actual objections this is a waste of time. I was pointing to the fallacy in his argument.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

Ask Tim. Personally I think its a rubbish argument. Unless we get into the nitty gritty of actual objections this is a waste of time. I was pointing to the fallacy in his argument.

My main objection is not an objection at all. I find I have no reason to believe, so therefore I do not believe. I have yet to read anything to convince me otherwise.

lmaopml

pauldla wrote: »

My main objection is not an objection at all. I find I have no reason to believe, so therefore I do not believe. I have yet to read anything to convince me otherwise.

Well, maybe 'reading' is not your forte. Or maybe you don't read enough - or perhaps you read only what suits - lots of people do that. It's not exactly comfortable reading something that goes against the grain or the will -

Perhaps one day 'living' will help you to understand why people are Christian.

Till then, get used to the concept of freedom of religion, and while you think that it's all daft - please don't consider that others didn't believe that once apon a time too, that they had all the answers - and lived to tell the tale and learn from it.

If you can't learn, and think there is nothing to learn, than where is the wisdom, what can you offer?

If you can't listen, than how can you hear anything? Deafening as the world is - The wise know how much they don't know - but do know a little bit of truth, and acknowledge it, and cling to it for all their worth.

pauldla

Such a vague and belittling answer. Allow me, please, to retort point by point.

Well, maybe 'reading' is not your forte. Or maybe you don't read enough - or perhaps you read only what suits - lots of people do that. It's not exactly comfortable reading something that goes against the grain or the will –

I am not sufficiently read on the matter? Very well, putting aside the dripping condescension, make some suggestions for further reading, please. To save time, you can omit Aquinas, Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, the Bible, and CS Lewis, as I have already read them.

Perhaps one day 'living' will help you to understand why people are Christian.

A particularly snide and self-serving argument, which as far as I can see lacks any real premise. Evidently I am alive at time of writing, and I am happy to report, hale and hearty to boot. Perhaps I need to add inverted commas to my living, in order to believe?

Till then, get used to the concept of freedom of religion, and while you think that it's all daft - please don't consider that others didn't believe that once apon a time too, that they had all the answers - and lived to tell the tale and learn from it.

I have never spoken against freedom of religion, nor would I. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Nor did I say that I think ‘it’s all daft’. I cannot understand your second sentence here: may I suggest not using too many double negatives when writing.

If you can't learn, and think there is nothing to learn, than where is the wisdom, what can you offer?

Very presumptive of you. Why do you think I can’t learn? Why do you presume I think there is nothing to learn? Where is my wisdom? Well, I know enough to know how little I know, but there is one little pearl in the previous paragraph which you are free to use.

If you can't listen, than how can you hear anything? Deafening as the world is - The wise know how much they don't know - but do know a little bit of truth, and acknowledge it, and cling to it for all their worth.

Well, as I stated above, I don’t believe because I see no reason to believe, and you’re certainly not winning me over with this.