Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Given that on this forum we have had people defending slavery, I don't defend slavery ... I abhorr it ... in all it's modern manifestations as well as its historical ones. We are free-willed Human Beings and each of us are the equal of any man or woman.

calling for science to be altered to allow Creationism, This is off-topic on this thread
explaining to women why submission to men is a good thing for them, ... submission by women to men in general isn't a good thing ... but in a loving respectful relationship, like Christian Marriage, I find that my wife submits to my every desire ... and she enjoys doing so !!!:D

saying how homosexual relationships are not equivalent in love to heterosexual ones and detailing how transgender people are sick (and that is what I can think of from the last month), Everyone to their own ... on this one.

I think if the worst atheists do to you is laugh at you consider yourself lucky ... but ye don't just laugh ... ye are very prejudicial in the unfounded nasty comments that ye make ... and ye show every sign of supporting and following through on blatant discrimination against Christians.
... for example what is behind your veiled threat that Christians should consider themselves lucky if ye only laugh at them ... what are you saying will happen them ... if they aren't lucky??

.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, it's my last try at this. I understand that you think my argument is based on circular reasoning. And I would agree with you if I was making an argument for miracles and this argument took the form of - if A then B therefore A. But I was doing nothing of the sort.

Remember, the conversation between tommy and myself was a conversation between two theists. When I replied to tommy I didn't argue for miracles because the presupposition that miracles happen was implicit in the conversation. Given this presupposition we went on to discuss how miracles could be classified. I questioned whether a miracle would not qualify - at least in some manner - as empirical evidence because it could potentially be observed and measured. That's all.

The fact that you totally discount miracles and therefore any evidence of them is of no interest to the discussion tommy and myself had. I wasn't attempting to justify the reality of miracles to a sceptic. I was talking with someone who already believe that miracles happen about another issue.

I've actually spent more time defending myself against an argument I didn't make then I have talked about the one I did.

By Darwin's beard I've no idea why you keep saying that when I have already explained it isn't relevant.

You asked are evidence of miracles not evidence for an interventionist God.

No is the answer, for the reason I already explained.

No is the answer if you are a theist.
No is the answer if you are an atheist.
No is the answer if you believe in miracles.
No is the answer if you don't believe in miracles.
No is the answer if you believe in an interventionist God.
No is the answer if you don't believe in an interventionist God.

No is the answer based on basic logic. The argument has nothing to do with a "worldview".

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I find that my wife submits to my every desire ... and she enjoys doing so !!!

Charming

JC there is a whole load of unanswered questions put to you on the Creationist thread, maybe you should go back to trolling responding there, you wouldn't want to keep your adoring fans waiting.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Charming

... you should try it sometime!!!:)

Zombrex wrote: »

JC there is a whole load of unanswered questions put to you on the Creationist thread, maybe you should go back to trolling responding there, you wouldn't want to keep your adoring fans waiting.

This is off topic here ... and I'm over here to discuss the Existence of God ...
... I also see that ye are just as hapless in your arguments against God here, as ye are in your 'arguments' in favour of Evolution over there.:):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... you should try it sometime!!!:)

This is off topic here ... and I'm over here to discuss the Existence of God ...
... I also see that ye are just as hapless in your arguments against God here, as ye are in your 'arguments' over there.:):D

Well yes, your ritual abuse of your wife has me stumped.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, your ritual abuse of your wife has me stumped.

... when did submission to my every loving desire by my wife, suddenly become 'ritual abuse'?

I did say that she also enjoys it.
... so what's your problem?

Are you some kind of latter-day 'puritan' that sees 'abuse' in every interaction between people ... even within a loving Christian Marriage?

... wouldn't it be ironic to have just shaken off the puritanism of 20th Century Ireland ... only to have it replaced with an even more virulent secular version in the 21st century?

In many ways, the pseudo-liberals of today are more intolerant of opposing opinions and just as vociferous in their condemnations as any conservative 1950's Irish Parish Priest ever was!!
... and they are much more likely to use the full force of law and media access to impose their PC viewpoints.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... when did submission to my every loving desire by my wife, suddenly become 'ritual abuse'?

I did say that she also enjoyed it.
... so what's your problem?

Are you some kind of latter-day 'puritan' that sees 'abuse' in every interaction between people ... even within a loving Christian Marriage?

... wouldn't it be ironic to have just shaken off the puritanism of 20th Century Ireland ... only to have it replaced with an even more virulent secular version in the 21st century?

In many ways, the pseudo-liberals of today are more intolerant of opposing opinions and just as vociferous in their condemnations as any conservative 1950's Irish Parish Priest ever was!!
... and they are much more likely to use the full force of law to impose their PC viewpoints.

Groan. All I can say is obvious troll is obvious.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Groan. All I can say is obvious troll is obvious.

Please answer my questions ... and stop trolling yourself by calling me a 'troll'...
... or is that your answer, when your puritanical pseudo-liberal pretensions are challenged?

If you weren't a Roman Catholic in 1950's Ireland the puritanism that was prevalent then, largely passed you by ... indeed if you were a non-conformist Roman Catholic, there was little that the priests could do to impose their views on you either ... but the modern pseudo-liberal recognises no such boundaries ... and they prosecute their viewpoint against everybody with missionary zeal 24/7.

Leinsterr

Before I get shouted down, I must say that I strongly believe that there is no god. If other people want to believe in a god, good for them, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. If they achieve inner fulfillment from believing in a god and are peaceful to one another, then that's just fine. However, the followers of religion have caused so much pain to this world that I can't see that there can be a god. I'm not saying that athiests haven't harmed anyone but not to the scale of religious nutjobs (a small minority of religious people). Also, I can pick up any random book and say this explains life and that a particular character is god if I apply the same criteria that the church has done. Therefore, i believe that there is no god

DEFTLEFTHAND

lazygal wrote: »

To whom are you referring?

Would your faith not sustain you through criticism, rather than needing to 'unleash profanity' on those who express different views? What did Jesus do when his faith was challenged by non believers?

I'm very open to others. I just become frustrated when people mock and deride the church. In Ireland these people for the most were raised Christian and have now turned their back on it, that's fine we all have free will but they shouldn't then abuse and belittle those who stay. It's petty behaviour.

lazygal

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm very open to others. I just become frustrated when people mock and deride the church. In Ireland these people for the most were raised Christian and have now turned their back on it, that's fine we all have free will but they shouldn't then abuse and belittle those who stay. It's petty behaviour.

Which people, exactly? What constitutes mocking and deriding? Which "the church" do you refer?

Benny_Cake

No creationist stuff on this thread please, there is more than enough of that on the megathread.

J C

Leinsterr wrote: »

Before I get shouted down, I must say that I strongly believe that there is no god. If other people want to believe in a god, good for them, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. If they achieve inner fulfillment from believing in a god and are peaceful to one another, then that's just fine. However, the followers of religion have caused so much pain to this world that I can't see that there can be a god. I'm not saying that athiests haven't harmed anyone but not to the scale of religious nutjobs (a small minority of religious people). Also, I can pick up any random book and say this explains life and that a particular character is god if I apply the same criteria that the church has done. Therefore, i believe that there is no god

Nobody should shout you down ... you are perfectly entitled to hold and express your opinion ... and you have done so in a reasonable and fortright manner.
I would disagree with you on one thing you said ... and that is your assumption that Atheism isn't just as capable of widespread killing ... and the Nazi and Atheistic Communist killing spree in the 20th Century shows that fallen people are capable of barbarity that can leave us lost for words to describe it ... whether they believe in God or they don't.

It's certainly not an argument one way or the other for the existence / non-existence of God ... who watches and cries at how a sinful Humanity has abused their free will in their barbaric behaviour towards each other ... but who also watches and smiles at how many people use their free will to love and help their fellow man of all religions and none.

I also disagree with you that the bulk of the killing can be ascribed to 'nutjobs' of either the religious or irreligious varieties ... pure evil is a better explanation for the actions of people like Hitler, Stalin and their many followers, who went home to their families after a day's killing and eat their supper as if they had been doing a normal days productive work!!!
In some ways it would be comforting if these guys were 'nutjobs' ... we could console ourselves that a more vigilent mental health service could prevent such situations arising again ... but we have no such comforting assurance because these guys weren't clinically insane.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

To re-emphasise the point above: The rules of QM always apply, even at the classical level. They just predict what classical mechanics predicts. What is controversial about the Copenhagen interpretation from a mathematical perspective is it postulates one rule for an unobserved quantum system, and another rule for an observed system. Modern physics, by contrast, normally formulates wavefunction collapse as decoherence which is a more unified formalism.

This is way off topic for the thread but one final comment /question. Does decoherence not imply that there is no actual wave function collapse in QM and we just observe it as such in the classical world? Is MWI not the only logical interpretation at that point?

I have been reading Scott Aaronson's blog and lectures and while it is relatively easy to follow, it is really hard to wrap your head around the implications of MWI.

johnny-grunge

How anyone can honestly believe the creator of the universe and everything within wrote a book specially for a few humans overwhelms me.

I totally understand people believing this stuff in the past but there's no excuse for it these days.

DEFTLEFTHAND

lazygal wrote: »

Which people, exactly? What constitutes mocking and deriding? Which "the church" do you refer?

Catholic Church. In my experience the people I speak of are young Irish adults 20s through 30s. Just log on to After Hours if you want examples of mocking and derision.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zombrex wrote: »

Given that on this forum we have had people defending slavery, calling for science to be altered to allow Creationism, explaining to women why submission to men is a good thing for them, saying how homosexual relationships are not equivalent in love to heterosexual ones and detailing how transgender people are sick (and that is what I can think of from the last month), I think if the worst atheists do to you is laugh at you consider yourself lucky :rolleyes:

Let's just stop the lights there, Women are the weaker sex, what's you're problem with that? Look at any animal species.

Homosexuals can feel genuine love I'm sure, I don't judge or care, I use my discretion. I'm not a complete Bible thumper.

Transgender people have a condition, however I don't think that they're sick, they should express themselves, God had a hand in their creation.

philologos

Zombrex: I know you've blocked me so this won't be read, but maybe for the benefit of others. It seems odd that if I didn't advocate the stance that Paul advocates on reforming slavery, and on the definition of marriage you would say I wasn't a "real Christian", and when you find out I'm a "real Christian" you insist on blocking me anyway.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Or is that what "tolerance" looks like?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: I know you've blocked me so this won't be read, but maybe for the benefit of others. It seems odd that if I didn't advocate the stance that Paul advocates on reforming slavery, and on the definition of marriage you would say I wasn't a "real Christian", and when you find out I'm a "real Christian" you insist on blocking me anyway.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Or is that what "tolerance" looks like?

Does being a real Christian mean defending inequality because the 2,000 year old book you use says its OK? Should slavery have remained legal because its explained how it should be done properly in the bible?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Does being a real Christian mean defending inequality because the 2,000 year old book you use says its OK? Should slavery have remained legal because its explained how it should be done properly in the bible?

Go read my posts again and you'll see what I actually said rather than what people claim I said. I don't think Christian marriage is inequality. Both parties are entirely equal in status even if their roles are different. That's my position and I've been 100% clear on it.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Go read my posts again and you'll see what I actually said rather than what people claim I said. I don't think Christian marriage is inequality. Both parties are entirely equal in status even if their roles are different. That's my position and I've been 100% clear on it.

Even though one submits to the other? Are you equal in status to god, if he exists that is, even though you submit to him?
Should inequality, as in a master/slave relationship, be justified if its in the bible?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Even though one submits to the other? Are you equal in status to god, if he exists that is, even though you submit to him?
Should inequality, as in a master/slave relationship, be justified if its in the bible?

You can see very clearly what I said in the latter. I'm not going through it again here.

On the former, it is probably best kept to the other thread.

J C

johnny-grunge wrote: »

How anyone can honestly believe the creator of the universe and everything within wrote a book specially for a few humans overwhelms me.

It's actually quite logical (and to be expected) that a God who Created Mankind would give them instructions on how they might best live their lives.
It would actually be irresponsible of Him to not do so.

What actually overwhelms me is that the God who Created the entire Universe loved a sinner like me so much that He humbled Himself to come down on Earth as a Man ... and died to Save me.
... and the fact that I am indwelt by His Holy Spirit is even more amazing ... but there you go ... our God isn't just omnipotent and omniscient ... He is also amazing!!!

johnny-grunge wrote: »

I totally understand people believing this stuff in the past but there's no excuse for it these days.

Think about it ... every manufacturer of any machine today must, by law, supply an instruction manual on how to safely use and properly maintain the machine ... for much the same reasons that God wrote the Bible on how Mankind should safely and responsibly use their bodies and the Creation over which we have been appointed as Stewards ...
... so it shouldn't be any surprise that God issued a manual on Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth ... AKA the Holy BIBLE.

The modern world is literally 'coming down' with Procedures Manuals and Safety Statements, including many for all kinds of minor issues ... and with ambiguous and self-contrdictory instructions in some cases ...
... and none of them can remotely match the wisdom and the authority of the Bible ...
... and yet they are obeyed and enforced with the greatest zeal by the very people who reject God's right to issue similar Procedures and Safety warnings ... that they blissfully ignore, in many cases.
... a classic example of do as I say ... but don't do what God says.
... so we are expected to unquestioningly obey every 'jot and tittle' of the fallible ideas of Man ... but ignore the infallible wisdom of God.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

By Darwin's beard I've no idea why you keep saying that when I have already explained it isn't relevant.

Because I happen to think you are missing my intention. Rereading my original post I can see how this has arisen so let me rephrase it. My original statement went as follows -

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

My slightly amended statement is -

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable - perhaps through observation - then that surely qualifies as evidence that God has intervened.

I was suggesting that there is evidence for God. And I gave the example that if one is inclined to believe that a particular miraculous account is reliable (and here is a discussion between Craig Keener and an atheist about the reliability of modern day accounts) then this would qualify as evidence for God and for a God that intervenes.

I believe that this is a valid statement. If you don't then I'm afraid you are stuck invoking Dawkin's beard.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that this is a valid statement. If you don't then I'm afraid you are stuck invoking Dawkin's beard.

... a dubious basis for invocation, if I ever saw one ... given the fact that Darwin's beard is returning to dust ... along with it's originator!!!:)

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: I know you've blocked me so this won't be read, but maybe for the benefit of others. It seems odd that if I didn't advocate the stance that Paul advocates on reforming slavery, and on the definition of marriage you would say I wasn't a "real Christian", and when you find out I'm a "real Christian" you insist on blocking me anyway.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Or is that what "tolerance" looks like?

But slavery can't be reformed Phil, only abolished ! You don't condone slavery do you ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

But slavery can't be reformed Phil, only abolished ! You don't condone slavery do you ?

Read my position, and you'll understand exactly what I said. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that I'm saying something entirely different from what I did

Some people seem more intent on defaming my character rather than listening to what is being said, and that's really disappointing.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

But slavery can't be reformed Phil, only abolished ! You don't condone slavery do you ?

What ever about being reformed ... slavery has been transformed into modern versions such as the 'sweat-shops' where people work for a pittance and people trafficking which are the latter-day versions of slavery ... that many people don't seem to be unduly concerned about.

It's very easy to condemn the past ... but somewhat more of a challenge to face up to the present and to do something about it.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Read my position, and you'll understand exactly what I said. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that I'm saying something entirely different from what I did

Some people seem more intent on defaming my character rather than listening to what is being said, and that's really disappointing.

Would you ever stop with the ''poor me'' syndrome , it is pretty hard to defame someone's character on an anonymous forum. It dos'nt matter if I agree with you or not, unless you see yourself on the same pedestal as Paul.

We are listening to what is being said , you just will not give a straight answer.

Paul laid out the correct framework for the master -slave relationship, is that true ?- yes or no please .

marienbad

J C wrote: »

What ever about being reformed ... slavery has been transformed into modern versions such as the 'sweat-shops' where people work for a pittance and people trafficking which are the latter-day versions of slavery ... that many people don't seem to be unduly concerned about.

It's very easy to condemn the past ... but somewhat more of a challenge to face up to the present and to do something about it.

So what ? two wrongs don'nt make a right .Did Paul approve of slavery or not ?