Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Canis Lupus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. You just leave. From the Catholic perspective, that's effective. There are no formalities required, and no hoops you have to jump through.

If you want, you can write to your bishop (or to the man who would be your bishop, if you were a Catholic) and tell him that you have left, and that provides a documentary record of the fact that you have left, if you feel the need for a record.

There used to be a more formal procedure that you could go through - indeed, that you had to go through if you wanted to be exempted from certain rules of Catholic canon law regarding marriage. But they dropped that requirement a couple of years back.

None of that matters anymore, you can't actually leave the good old catholic church nowadays regardless of who you tell/write to.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

You do that by posting videos about a priest complaining about the arrogance of scientists?

Science is important, as it accurate public understanding of science. I posted in response to this video because you linked it. I posted on Fr. Barron's YouTube page because he went to the trouble of making a video full of inaccurate and faulty logic attacking a scientist and scientific standards, and people read his YouTube page.

The question "Why do atheists bother" comes up all the time on the A&A forum, and the answer is always the same, "Because religious people bother." When religious people stop attacking science and rationalism in order to making their supernatural beliefs seem more reasonable, it will not longer be necessary for atheists to respond to such attacks.

Zombrex (or anyone else) -

1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?

2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament?

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

Does this mean that man created evil?

It means that no evil existed in the world prior to the fall of humanity.

Attabear

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex (or anyone else) -

1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?

2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament?

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.

For me personally,

1. I don't

2. I don't

3. I don't

4. This is not as easy. But I believe a rational person needs a good reason to believe in something and an irrational belief is a belief with no good reason.
I also think that's quite a subjective term, one man's rational belief is anothers codswallop.

In summary: I like answering questions with numbers.:)

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex (or anyone else) -

1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?

2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament?

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.

1) No one thinks this (I hope)
2) Sharing is one thing, imposing is another
3) I don't think they are, I think they should be complementry.
4) The same basis that any faith is rational, a person looks at the evidence and decides based on reason.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

philologos wrote: »

It means that no evil existed in the world prior to the fall of humanity.

You can probably anticipate the next comment.

Grand, let's accept this scenario that there's no actual evil until the Fall - no-one has done anything bad yet.

However, for someone to be able to do bad, that potential has to exist within reality, as created by God. So the concept of evil has to exist within God, and the capacity to do evil has to come from God - as the ultimate source of everything that is.

Alternatively, it is necessary to contend that God didn't know what he was doing; he created free will and was then surprised when things got so badly out of control.

Cutting to the chase, either God isn't all good, or God isn't all powerful/knowing.

JimiTime

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You can probably anticipate the next comment.

Grand, let's accept this scenario that there's no actual evil until the Fall - no-one has done anything bad yet.

However, for someone to be able to do bad, that potential has to exist within reality, as created by God. So the concept of evil has to exist within God, and the capacity to do evil has to come from God - as the ultimate source of everything that is.

Alternatively, it is necessary to contend that God didn't know what he was doing; he created free will and was then surprised when things got so badly out of control.

Cutting to the chase, either God isn't all good, or God isn't all powerful/knowing.

Or God IS all knowing, but you are assuming that in his knowledge he would have changed how he did things.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

JimiTime wrote: »

Or God IS all knowing, but you are assuming that in his knowledge he would have changed how he did things.

I don't think I'm making such an assumption.

If he is all knowing, and all powerful, then he deliberately created a universe in which evil would exist. Being all powerful, he clearly could have left the evil out.

Alternatively, he could have known he was about to create a universe with evil, but be powerless to eliminate that evil. So he had to choose between a universe with evil, or none at all.

Or he might not be all knowing, and have set off a chain of events that included evil by accident.

Of course, if he created everything, regardless of which option, he's the ultimate source of the evil.

JimiTime

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think I'm making such an assumption.

If he is all knowing, and all powerful, then he deliberately created a universe in which evil would exist. Being all powerful, he clearly could have left the evil out.

How?


Alternatively, he could have known he was about to create a universe with evil, but be powerless to eliminate that evil. So he had to choose between a universe with evil, or none at all.

You assume powerless. Maybe he chose, for a reason not clear to you (or I), to allow a system that could allow evil to rise.

Of course, if he created everything, regardless of which option, he's the ultimate source of the evil.

Thats like saying light is the source or darkness.

Firstly, all the above is assumption. See my responses in red.

Doc Farrell

Zombrex wrote: »

You do that by posting videos about a priest complaining about the arrogance of scientists?

Science is important, as it accurate public understanding of science....When religious people stop attacking science and rationalism in order to making their supernatural beliefs seem more reasonable, it will not longer be necessary for atheists to respond to such attacks.

Still with the false dichotomy between religion and science, that was the point of the video, the silliness of scientism, not science, hence the title.

Take a look at some of the names on this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists

I'm sorry you've taken a dislike to Fr. Barron as I intend to mention him quite a bit on this forum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

JimiTime wrote: »

You assume powerless. Maybe he chose, for a reason not clear to you (or I), to allow a system that could allow evil to rise.

In fairness, I'm trying to set out all of the possible options. I'm not choosing any of them in preference to another - if I did, I agree that I would be making an assumption.

He might not have wanted to have evil, but be powerless to exclude it.

Or he might be all powerful, but have decided (as you say, for reasons we cannot know) to have evil as part of his universe.

Thats like saying light is the source or darkness.

I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. People don't contend that light creates all things, including darkness. But people do contend that God is the ultimate source/creator of all things. That means there's nowhere outside of God for anything to come from - good, evil, darkness of light.

Unless he's not all-powerful, and not the originator of all things.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex (or anyone else) -

1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?

Atheism is not expressly related to science. However, one of the foundational principles of science is that you don't accept explanations on no, or insufficient, evidence. A Christian can be a scientist but you can't be scientific about Christianity without throwing almost all of it out. Atheism is exactly what happens when you take a truely scientific approach to the claims of Christianity.


2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament?

He never said he did. He said his response to it was necessitated by this insistance that Christians have of trying to make everyone else think like them.

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

Already explained in 1. You can be Christian and scientific, just not the latter about the former and remain Christian.

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.[/QUOTE]

When someone beleives somthing that we would generally regard are well founded on the evidence, we call that a rational belief. When they believe a load of inconsistant myth on no evidence, that is not rational.

HHobo

On the whole "Did man create evil or did God?" thing and God's choices.

Christians would have us believe that God is both all-good and all-knowing.

So he knows in advance that if he creates humans they will do evil. He also knows that because he is so inflexibly just (apparently there are forced even God cannot resist) he will have to torture them forever?? - unless they beg well enough and very thankful - this will allow him to suddenly be less just. This is God supposedly being merciful.

Given that he knows already if a given, yet to be created, person is going to suffer for all eternity, would it not be infinitely more merciful to simply not create them at all?

Would any but an evil God choose to create these people anyway?

tommy2bad

HHobo;

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

Already explained in 1. You can be Christian and scientific, just not the latter about the former and remain Christian.

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.

When someone beleives somthing that we would generally regard are well founded on the evidence, we call that a rational belief. When they believe a load of inconsistant myth on no evidence, that is not rational.[/QUOTE]

Couple of points here, first, why would you be scientific about Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism for that matter? Apart from a paper in some obscure anthropological journal science and faith are not in the same ball park. They serve different purposes and using one to trump the other is as stupid as removing your left hand because you use your right to stir your tea.

Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking.

El_Duderino 09

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex (or anyone else) -

1) why do you hold the nonsensical belief that atheism is sciences handmaiden and that you are any more a defender of science than a scientist who is a Christian for example?

2) why do you expect Christians not to bother sharing their faith with others given what is in the New Testament?

3) on what reasonable grounds do you think science and Christianity are incompatible?

4) on what basis is atheism "rational"? I think these are just meaningless rhetorical terms you chuck around.

1) I haven't stopped beating my wife yet.

2) I dont expect that. It would be an unreasonable expectation and i acknowledge the right of religions to preach to people who choose to be preached to. I do however expect them to do it personally and not through the state passing laws to suit them.

For example if catholics say gays should not marry, then gay catholics should not marry. Gays who are not catholic should not be expected to behave in accordance with catholic rules and catholics have no business encouraging the state to legislating for everyone as if we are all catholics.

3) Science and religion are not necessarily incompatible but they are about different things. Science is about figuring out the facts about reality, testing hypothesis against new hypothesis, discarding the facts which are found to be inaccurate and replacing them with more accurate facts and eventually forming theories and advancing knowledge about reality. Christianity is about teaching and perpetuating christianity. Why should they be compatible?

4) Until there is evidence in favour of a position it is rational not to assume the subject of that claim is manifest in reality.

If any actual evidence is found in favour of gods then the position has to change. Until then belief in gods remains absent.

What passes as evidence for gods is so weak and so open to interpretation, that there are thousands of religions each with different claims and rules and in my eyes each has equal validity and reliability.

To put it simply, christianity is not even a hypothesis so absence of belief in christianity's claims (atheism) is the most rational position for now.

I hope this helps

HHobo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Couple of points here, first, why would you be scientific about Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism for that matter?

When Chriatianity makes claims about reality, I would judge them by the same criteria I would judge any other claim. Why would I have a special way of considering the claims of Christianity?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking.

I don't really see why we can't be both emotional beings and rational.

As to the person choosing to beleive in God, I am sure there are situations where for them subjectively it might actually be the most rational choice. An example might be a parent who has lost a child and only through a belief in an afterlife can they possibly go on with their lives. There choice is not going to be rational objectively in the sense of conformity to reality.

Incidentally, any belief for which there is insufficent evidence or reasons to believe it, is irrational in the sense I am describing.
Right now, scientists who believe in the idea of cold fusion or perpetual motion machines are not being raitonal. Most religious people are perfectly capable of rationality. They are even perfectly capable of being rational about religious beliefs, just not the ones they ascribe to themselves, generally. There are even the religious who accept that their faith is not rational. It is a matter of faith to them. If you have reasons to believe a thing, you don't need faith. If you believe something you have no reason to believe, you are not really being rational. This is not always, probably not even mostly a problem. That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational. It might also be the best thing you ever did.

Zombrex

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Still with the false dichotomy between religion and science, that was the point of the video, the silliness of scientism, not science, hence the title.

Even if that was the point of the video it doesn't answer my question. What does the "silliness of scientism" have to do with you "shar[ing] some of the hope and comforts that I have found in the New Testament and the tradition that follows since the time of Jesus."

Sharing the hope and comfort of the New Testament seems to include attacking anything that suggests maybe your religion is false or based on shaky foundations.

Anyway, the false dichotomy between religion and science isn't false at all. As has been discussed many times, science is the best way humans have at discovering accurate theories about the actual nature of reality.

Theology supposes other, better ways, that do not conform to scientific standards. Which if were true raises the question "Why are these methods not already incorporated into the scientific method?" They aren't of course because they fail the standards science imposes.

The point is that if these methods were actually any good they would be part of science in the first place. They aren't, because they fail the philosophical standards considered necessary for science to actually do its aim (discover the most accurate notions of how reality truly is).

Religions that prescribe to the idea that there exists methodologies that do better than science at discerning accurate notions of reality with out using the scientific method are by definition anti-science.

If you think you know better than the scientific method you are either being anti-science or you need to quickly tell the scientists so they can incorporate this better system into the scientific method.

Andrewf20

Just in relation to the question of evil, the following biblical quote suggests God does at least in some part creates evil...


Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

philologos

Doc Farrell: I know how it feels. Take a bit of time off boards.ie for your own good. Boiling in frustration isn't good for any man.

It can be annoying to see the same rhetoric without explanation again and again from some atheists on this forum, but go, relax and come back. Don't let others be the boss of your emotions.

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Just in relation to the question of evil, the following biblical quote suggests God does at least in some part creates evil...


Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Which translation is that from? (Or which site did you see it on in Google?):
Let's have a look in context. Isaiah is writing this about the Emperor Cyrus of Persia after the exile of Judah to Babylon:

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
and to loose the belts of kings,
to open doors before him
that gates may not be closed:
“I will go before you
and level the exalted places,
I will break in pieces the doors of bronze
and cut through the bars of iron,
I will give you the treasures of darkness
and the hoards in secret places,
that you may know that it is I, the LORD,
the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
For the sake of my servant Jacob,
and Israel my chosen,
I call you by your name,
I name you, though you do not know me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
“Shower, O heavens, from above,
and let the clouds rain down righteousness;
let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness may bear fruit;
let the earth cause them both to sprout;
I the LORD have created it.
“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him,
a pot among earthen pots!
Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
or ‘Your work has no handles’?
Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’
or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’”
Thus says the LORD,
the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him:
“Ask me of things to come;
will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands?
I made the earth
and created man on it;
it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,
and I commanded all their host.
I have stirred him up in righteousness,
and I will make all his ways level;
he shall build my city
and set my exiles free,
not for price or reward,”
says the LORD of hosts.
(Isaiah 45:1-13 ESV)

Now calamity does not mean evil. In this case calamity is referring to the judgement of God on the surrounding nations of Persia (including the Babylonians).

Isaiah 44 also speaks of Cyrus, so this would make sense in the context of Isaiah.

tommy2bad

HHobo;
That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational

Well no one ever claimed it was rational unless you ascribe to Pascals wager. Christianity self describes as foolishness in the eyes of the world. So what?

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

That doesn't alter the fact that believing the claims of Christianity is still going to be irrational. It might also be the best thing you ever did.

It's really really not a fact irrespective of how much you might want it to be it's meaningless rhetoric.

Why would it be the best thing? (sounds like more baseless rhetoric)

HHobo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well no one ever claimed it was rational unless you ascribe to Pascals wager. Christianity self describes as foolishness in the eyes of the world. So what?

I was responding to this:

tommy2bad wrote: »

Second, Ahemm I'm not sure about that one.Isn't it perfectly rational for someone to believe in God if believing in God serves a purpose for them? We are not calculating computers, we are emotional beings with a capacity for thinking.

I was differentiating between a thing being rational for a person to do with a very specific personal goal like "I want to increase my happiness".

Lots of things become rational when the sought after ends are narrowed in focus. For instance. If I want to "increase my pleasure", taking heroin may be a rational choice in achieving this.

When taken in a wider context, where I value all kinds of other things, taking heroin becomes a much less rational choice, even if my immediate goal remains the same.

That Christianity is not rational is not a problem unless you have specific goals with which this particular irrationality conflicts. If you want to live a life where your ideas are founded on rational thought, having irrational beliefs because they make you feel better is a problem. If you are not particularly concerned about your rational consistancy, then it isn't. I actually have a lot of respect for the religious who can recognise the funadamental irrationality in religious faith. It takes a lot of guts and intellectual integrity to admit and such people are generally much likely to try to impose their beliefs. I don't, incidentally, consider someone trying to convince me of their beliefs to be imposing them on me. When the law start to reflect their particular beliefs in contravention of modern values. Blasphemy law, for example, then I consider it an imposition.

I completely understand why Christians proselytise. If they take their beliefs seriously, they kind of have to.

El_Duderino 09

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well no one ever claimed it was rational unless you ascribe to Pascals wager. Christianity self describes as foolishness in the eyes of the world. So what?

Is this the argument you are making?

P1. The bible self describes as foolishness.
P2. The bible does appear to be foolish.

C. The fact that the bible appears to be foolishness is evidence in favour of the bible's truthfulness.

HHobo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is this the argument you are making?

P1. The bible self describes as foolishness.
P2. The bible does appear to be foolish.

C. The fact that the bible appears to be foolishness is evidence in favour of the bible's truthfulness.

In fairness to Tommy, I don't think he intended this as an argument for the veracity of the bible. More a musing on how important rationality actually is. - Tommy, please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here.

El_Duderino 09

HHobo wrote: »

In fairness to Tommy, I don't think he intended this as an argument for the veracity of the bible. More a musing on how important rationality actually is. - Tommy, please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here.

My bad.

tommy2bad

HHobo;
When the law start to reflect their particular beliefs in contravention of modern values. Blasphemy law, for example, then I consider it an imposition.

I completely understand why Christians proselytise. If they take their beliefs seriously, they kind of have to.

Assuming that those "values" (intentional scare quotes) are rational.;)

Kinda want to if they do believe and have to if their belief needs the support of unanimous support.
My point is that faith isn't rational and believers have always realized this.
Seeking to impose that belief on to a world that sees it as such is a sign of weak faith.
The bible is true, not factual. It's not a record of creation or a physics manual. It's a telling of the relationship of man and God. Either side using God or his nonexistence to make laws are missing the point of faith and of being human.

HHobo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Either side using God or his nonexistence to make laws are missing the point of faith and of being human.

I agree. I can't even imagine how one would go about making laws based on atheism and I hope I never find out!

I think the religious person and the atheist alike can be rational in deriving laws as I'm confident either can be irrational in this regard as well. There were many religious people who are against the blasphemy law. I would defend a religious person's right to believe and espouse whatever they want as vehemently as an atheist's. I see that as the place rationality has in our determining the values or rights we want to ensure in law. We might not like or agree with something but we can still protect it under the law. Overcoming our own prejudices and biases is the role rationality plays in achieving what I think most people want, regardless of their religious position. Laws that treat all people equally and restrict our freedom only as much as is necessary to prevent the breaches of our rights by others.

philologos

HHobo: I disagree, from what I remember in Ireland there were barely any Christians who wanted the Defamation Act in 2009 to be passed. I completley opposed it. I oppose blasphemy laws entirely.

Doc Farrell

Zombrex wrote: »

Religions that prescribe to the idea that there exists methodologies that do better than science at discerning accurate notions of reality with out using the scientific method are by definition anti-science.

If you think you know better than the scientific method you are either being anti-science or you need to quickly tell the scientists so they can incorporate this better system into the scientific method.

So the tens of thousands of working scientists who are Christian are anti-science? The hundreds of priests on the Wikipedia list I linked to on the previous posts who were also famous scientists are also anti-science? According to your definition above the answer is a simple yes or no. Or is it possible that science and religion are two different subjects, with different goals?
The source, purpose and goal of religion is to experience love, Zombrex. It's that simple. As you already know that is not the purpose of science. At least, I don't think so! If you are uncomfortable with that definition of what Christianity is then I'm sorry but I can link to hundreds of people who define it as such. This is a Christianity forum, it's what you are going to hear. Do you think that my definition is wrong?