Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all.

It's hardly my fault that instead of engaging with actual Christian beliefs you choose to present parodies that you think will prove easier for you.

I'm discussing free will and whether or not the removal of the ability to physically cause suffering removes our free will.

I'm discussing that because that is what the Christian argument is. This is a justification for why God allows the ability to suffer and the ability to cause suffering. I know this because Christian posters, including yourself, regularly make this argument, stating that without the ability to cause suffering we would be mindless robots.

Mindless preprogrammed robots are in fact your words, one you have used regularly.

PDN wrote: »

If you want to argue that we can make non-moral choices and be happy in a mythical universe without evil or suffering then go ahead, knock yourself out. But, again, I don't see why you want to do that in the Christianity Forum. You might as well argue about whether leprecauns exist, after all, that is equally irrelevant to Christian beliefs.

That is the whole point.

The idea that we will lose either free will, or lose the ability to happy or experience positive emotions such as love, if God removes the ability to cause suffering, is nonsense. It has been shown to be nonsense. In fact I would bet you yourself know it is nonsense because you simply keep repeating it with no attempt to justify it or explain it, probably in the hope that it gives your fellow Christians an excuse to blindly conclude that this little issue has been taken care of and they don't need to examine it themselves.

Simply dismissing my posts by saying well its not what Christians believe is irrelevant because this is the Existence of God debate thread, the whole point is that Christians are wrong in their assertions that this negates positive emotions or experiences (or more accurately they haven't thought about it properly). You can keep asserting it all you like, it doesn't mean you have presented an argument for why it is true. It just sounds nice, it allows you to think that God isn't the uncaring monster that the natural world would imply, but is instead doing what is ultimately in our best interests because he wants us to be able to experience love and other positive emotions and to do this he has to allow suffering and pain.

PDN wrote: »

In the face of such honesty and irrefutable logic it's amazing that atheists aren't in the majority yet.

Christianity and other supernatural religions appeal to humans on an emotional and sub-conscious level, and the desire to believe unfortunately often over-rides reason and intelligent argument, which this thread is unfortunately a very good example of.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

Well don't leave me waiting: do they? And in what doctrine?

They certainly do. And I am living proof of it. I was indoctrinated to accept the position that God does not exist. Thankfully I grew up annd learned to think for myself.

As to 'what doctrine?' - let me help you (from a really useful site you might want to visit called dictionary.com):

in·doc·tri·na·tion [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
noun
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:

Or, from our old friend wikipedia:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology

Now, the sad, but inescapable fact, is that the vast majority of people who have professed atheism throughout history, and particularly so in the last century, have done so because they were conditioned (either in childhood or later in life) to accept a principle, ideology, idea or attitude.

Of course the same is true of most religions as well, but most of the Christians who frequent this forum don't have their heads so far up their own butts as to somehow imagine that indoctrination only occurs on one side of the Atheist/Theist divide.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

They certainly do. And I am living proof of it. I was indoctrinated to accept the position that God does not exist. Thankfully I grew up annd learned to think for myself.

As to 'what doctrine?' - let me help you (from a really useful site you might want to visit called dictionary.com):

in·doc·tri·na·tion [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
noun
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:

Or, from our old friend wikipedia:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology

Now, the sad, but inescapable fact, is that the vast majority of people who have professed atheism throughout history, and particularly so in the last century, have done so because they were conditioned (either in childhood or later in life) to accept a principle, ideology, idea or attitude.

Of course the same is true of most religions as well, but most of the Christians who frequent this forum don't have their heads so far up their own butts as to somehow imagine that indoctrination only occurs on one side of the Atheist/Theist divide.

I discovered for myself that there is no god and that religion does more harm than good. Nobody conditioned me. I also discovered the dismissive nature of religionists comes naturally & that they claim they are open to debate, as long as it goes their own way.

And I'd rather have my head up my hole than wade through the acres of excreta that religionists spew forth. Generally.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

I discovered for myself that there is no god and that religion does more harm than good. Nobody conditioned me.

Good for you! It's just as well that no-one here was arguing a lop-sided view that atheists are more likely than Christians to be indoctrinated, then, isn't it? Because you would have been able to contradict them.

As it is both you and I are testimony to the fact that indoctrination is a pretty common human trait and, thankfully, so is the tendency to resist indoctrination. So we've actually got quite a bit in common on our different sides of the fence. Vive la différence!

I also discovered the dismissive nature of religionists comes naturally & that they claim they are open to debate, as long as it goes their own way.

And atheists are never dismissive of those with different views, are they? Quite the opposite - sweetness and light in my experience.

And I'd rather have my head up my hole than wade through the acres of excreta that religionists spew forth. Generally.

And that's the beauty of diversity! Boards.ie has provided a forum where you can exercise that preference in the company of others who feel the same way as you do. Isn't the internet wonderful?

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

Good for you! It's just as well that no-one here was arguing a lop-sided view that atheists are more likely than Christians to be indoctrinated, then, isn't it? Because you would have been able to contradict them.

As it is both you and I are testimony to the fact that indoctrination is a pretty common human trait and, thankfully, so is the tendency to resist indoctrination. So we've actually got quite a bit in common on our different sides of the fence. Vive la différence!


And atheists are never dismissive of those with different views, are they? Quite the opposite - sweetness and light in my experience.


And that's the beauty of diversity! Boards.ie has provided a forum where you can exercise that preference in the company of others who feel the same way as you do. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Wonderful, infuriating and occasionally patronising.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

Wonderful, infuriating and occasionally patronising.

We aim to please.

But seriously, you will find that my default position is that human beings are human beings. Atheists, Christians, and those of other religions are liable to promote their opinions by indoctrinating their children and by abusing power when they are given too much of it. They are, IMHO, equally prone to being dismissive or arrogant.

And, if we can all recognise that fact, then we can all play nice. But, when we see someone from one side of the fence trying to pretend that their co-religionists (or co-ideologists) are whiter than white, and that the other side are much worse, then I have an irresistable urge to puncture their pomposity. And, learning from my compatriot and hero Oscar Wilde, I've found that humour can do that most effectively.

Happy Christmas!

Ciaran0

ISAW wrote: »

So Christianity is to blame for any time they enforced religion biut atheistic regimes can never hold atheism ( the actual concept they are enforcing ) to account?



Please explain what a "modern/progressive" country is?
Considering you go on to provide quantitative data on "no God" countries having higher value of life scores whatother case were you making?




Which states


http://www.adherents.com/adh_predom.html
Christianity
In the following countries the majority of the population cites one of the branches of Christianity as their preferred religion:

Ironically lists France, Denmark, Spain and Germany, USA, UK. Oh and Belgium!



Look! in atheistic communist countries they always slaughtered.
In non atheistic communist regimes they didn't.
In non communist atheistic dictatorships they always slaughtered.
In non atheistic dictatorships they didn't.
Got the picture yet?



It doies not seem to be sinking in. Go through them one by one if you want and see which ones repressed religions and which didnt and how they faired.



What I do or don't do isn't at issue here. Nor whether I am a Catholic or not. I hjave already pointed out to you an agnostic making these points. But in case you diont know I tend to defend the side that the media myth attacks. Whether that is the RCC or Islam or politicians it does not mean I have to be one of them. In this case i represent RC views as best and fairly as I can. Don't try the "guilt by association" or "fundamentalist" card on me.



No it doesnt. Butagain if we were only to take RC or Orthodox or anglican you would have problems with thatassertion . Particularly with anglicans. Butlet us take RC. in this thread a few pages back reference was made to the reports into diocese coming out and how the Chairman who is a Protestant dint realise this image he had of a hierarchical structure was not true.


It is of no merit because you are aware the numbers are in huge disparity. Just as in other threads clerical abusers are less than one per cent of abusers but their detractors want ot ignore that.

It's impossible to argue with this level of ignorance. You haven't once even tried to refute anything I said. You keep repeating and repeating that atheism is wrong because communists who were atheists pushed it onto people, killed lots of people and their countries failed. This argument is flawed. It's been pointed out again and again. Do you want to answer some of the questions I asked?

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

We aim to please.

But seriously, you will find that my default position is that human beings are human beings. Atheists, Christians, and those of other religions are liable to promote their opinions by indoctrinating their children and by abusing power when they are given too much of it. They are, IMHO, equally prone to being dismissive or arrogant.

And, if we can all recognise that fact, then we can all play nice. But, when we see someone from one side of the fence trying to pretend that their co-religionists (or co-ideologists) are whiter than white, and that the other side are much worse, then I have an irresistable urge to puncture their pomposity. And, learning from my compatriot and hero Oscar Wilde, I've found that humour can do that most effectively.

Happy Christmas!

Human beings are human beings, so why do they need a fictional deity? Is it to lessen the human experience?

Happy festivus!

Ciaran0

Why have I read so much about these "agenda driven atheists"? I wasn't aware we had an agenda. Could someone send me a link?

Cato Maior

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Why have I read so much about these "agenda driven atheists"? I wasn't aware we had an agenda. Could someone send me a link?

Well you have an agenda, and I have one, but, of course, neither of those agendas have anything necessarily in common. While many atheists are indeed secularists, some are not. Indeed, I once knew an atheist who believed that there should be a state religion and that people should have to attend religious services. There is nothing in atheism that necessitates one having a view on anything else other than the god-hypothesis. Other than having broad agreement on that score, no two atheists need, as atheists, to agree on anything.

old hippy

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Why have I read so much about these "agenda driven atheists"? I wasn't aware we had an agenda. Could someone send me a link?

We do have an agenda. We're clearly baby eating, pink wristed, communist loving bleeding heart liberals trying to infect the chosen with our hated brand of sensibility.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Here's a wee idea. Try comparing the numbers and percentages of estimated atheists worldwide today with fifty years ago. That should give you an idea of some, er, 'trends'.

And atheists never indoctrinate children, do they? :pac:

That my be true right now PDN, and it is an interesting discussion. I would hazard a guess though that the tide is against you in that the more developed a society is the more quickly they fall away from their faith. Ireland in the last 75 years is a good example.Similarly with the children and grandchildren of Pakistani immigrants to England.

What regions is faith growing ? Africa, China, the less devoloped world ?

If the west is anything to go by prosperity , communications, the advance of science,the pursuit of filthy lucre will have its inevitable effect.

Of course a world war and another economic implosion or two could change all that .

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

Human beings are human beings, so why do they need a fictional deity?

They don't. That's why I would much prefer that they encountered the non-fictional variety.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

They don't. That's why I would much prefer that they encountered the non-fictional variety.

And who would these be? Serious question.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

That my be true right now PDN, and it is an interesting discussion. I would hazard a guess though that the tide is against you in that the more developed a society is the more quickly they fall away from their faith.

I wasn't discussing people falling away from their faith. I was discussing atheism.

More developed countries tend to be less authoritarian. Therefore I would expect a greater diversity of options to be manifested. This is one reason why Christianity (and particularly the forms of it that depend on adult decision making) grows rapidly in countries that are traditionally non-Christian and then become more developed.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

And who would these be? Serious question.

God, as in Yahweh, Creator of heaven and earth.

And now, if you wish, you can make one of your unsupported statements of opinion that you are prone to - to the effect that you think my God is fictional (just in case you think that we might need that explaining to us, it not being immediately apparent with you being an atheist).

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't discussing people falling away from their faith. I was discussing atheism.

More developed countries tend to be less authoritarian. Therefore I would expect a greater diversity of options to be manifested. This is one reason why Christianity (and particularly the forms of it that depend on adult decision making) grows rapidly in countries that are traditionally non-Christian and then become more developed.

and then fall away ? as I say the tide is moving out for you. We appear to be in agreement.

Ciaran0

What is the percentage of atheists in Ireland at the moment?

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

God, as in Yahweh, Creator of heaven and earth.

And now, if you wish, you can make one of your unsupported statements of opinion that you are prone to - to the effect that you think my God is fictional (just in case you think that we might need that explaining to us, it not being immediately apparent with you being an atheist).

Like one of your unsupported statements that your fictional deity created an non existent realm and this planet?

Like shooting fish in a barrel, you make it so easy

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

and then fall away ? as I say the tide is moving out for you. We appear to be in agreement.

Not at all. I look at demographics and see the following:

Christianity (as a generic whole) is increasing numerically but remaining static as a percentage of world population.

The brand of Christianity to which I belong (Pentecostal/Charismatic) has increased from a handful of people 110 years ago to where it now embraces approximately 10% of the world's population.

Over the Twentieth Century, Atheism increased dramatically but has considerably declined numerically since 1980.

So, no, I don't think the tide is moving out for me at all.

In fact, I think we have much more in common than you think. Atheist numbers overall have declined, but the variety of atheism that you presumably espouse (voluntary rather than coerced) has probably increased.

Christian numbers overall are increasing (if remaining flat as a percentage of world population) but the variety of Christianity that I espouse is increasing dramatically.

The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of atheists in Ireland are increasing - which you presumably think is a good thing.


The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of Pentecostals in Ireland are increasing - which I think is a good thing.

So the direction of the tide is looking pretty good from where I'm standing.

Ciaran0

old hippy wrote: »

Like one of your unsupported statements that your fictional deity created an non existent realm and this planet?

Like shooting fish in a barrel, you make it so easy

Of course he's going to say that the burden of proof is on you because you're in his forum.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. I look at demographics and see the following:

Christianity (as a generic whole) is increasing numerically but remaining static as a percentage of world population.

The brand of Christianity to which I belong (Pentecostal/Charismatic) has increased from a handful of people 110 years ago to where it now embraces approximately 10% of the world's population.

Over the Twentieth Century, Atheism increased dramatically but has considerably declined numerically since 1980.

So, no, I don't think the tide is moving out for me at all.

In fact, I think we have much more in common than you think. Atheist numbers overall have declined, but the variety of atheism that you presumably espouse (voluntary rather than coerced) has probably increased.

Christian numbers overall are increasing (if remaining flat as a percentage of world population) but the variety of Christianity that I espouse is increasing dramatically.

The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of atheists in Ireland are increasing - which you presumably think is a good thing.


The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of Pentecostals in Ireland are increasing - which I think is a good thing.

So the direction of the tide is looking pretty good from where I'm standing.

A mere dribble, which hopefuly will evaporate come the enlightenment.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

What is the percentage of atheists in Ireland at the moment?

No idea. I would rather expect you to be the one to research that.

Old Hippy wrote:

Like one of your unsupported statements that your fictional deity created an non existent realm and this planet?

I don't interject with unsupported assertions. I answered a question. It's hardly my problem that you are part of a minority group that disagrees with me.

Can we do better than this rather puerile soapboxing?

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

No idea. I would rather expect you to be the one to research that.


I don't interject with unsupported assertions. I answered a question. It's hardly my problem that you are part of a minority group that disagrees with me.

Can we do better than this rather puerile soapboxing?

Don't you mean puritanical?

I lost a good friend to the Pentecostals, btw.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

A mere dribble, which hopefuly will evaporate come the enlightenment.

A mere dribble that has thousands of people packing into buildings every Sunday. Look, I'll come back when you actually have something to discuss rather than throwing jibes about. If I want that I'll visit After Hours.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

A mere dribble that has thousands of people packing into buildings every Sunday. Look, I'll come back when you actually have something to discuss rather than throwing jibes about. If I want that I'll visit After Hours.

Let's discuss people with their heads up their butts, how about that?

What do your friends get from packing into these alleged buildings?

Cato Maior

PDN wrote: »

A mere dribble that has thousands of people packing into buildings every Sunday. Look, I'll come back when you actually have something to discuss rather than throwing jibes about. If I want that I'll visit After Hours.

I think that there will always be a significant number of people who will have religious beliefs, and perhaps a majority will believe in god. None of that though goes towards the truth or falsity of religious claims.

I think that atheists who think that religion is simply going to die off or fall to insignificant numbers are somewhat failing to take into account human nature. Some people will always need something like religion to deal with the (what at least they would see) as the vicissitudes of life.

I agree with you on the jibes thing. The 'sky fairy' stuff is touch juvenile and really does little for the debate. It only really works on people on the verge of dis-belief and not on those who believe that they have solid rational grounds to believe what they do. Russell's Teapot it ain't.

old hippy

Cato Maior wrote: »

I think that there will always be a significant number of people who will have religious beliefs, and perhaps a majority will believe in god. None of that though goes towards the truth or falsity of religious claims.

I think that atheists who think that religion is simply going to die off or fall to insignificant numbers are somewhat failing to take into account human nature. Some people will always need something like religion to deal with the (what at least they would see) as the vicissitudes of life.

I agree with you on the jibes thing. The 'sky fairy' stuff is touch juvenile and really does little for the debate. It only really works on people on the verge of dis-belief and not on those who believe that they have solid rational grounds to believe what they do. Russell's Teapot it ain't.

Pff, he started it

Cato Maior

old hippy wrote: »

Pff, he started it

I tend to find that one is better advised not to allow the low standards of others to determine the standards by which one operates.

PDN

Cato Maior wrote: »

I think that there will always be a significant number of people who will have religious beliefs, and perhaps a majority will believe in god. None of that though goes towards the truth or falsity of religious claims.

I wholeheartedly agree. Popularity is not a reliable indication of whether something is true or not.

Then again, for Christians it is not just a matter of proving something to be true. My happiness at seeing Christianity growing is not because I think it proves me right, but because I'm glad increasing numbers of people are receiving salvation.