When atheists go too far

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

The penalty is for every wrongdoing (wrong in a Christian sense is what is against God's standards).

Subjective.

philologos wrote: »

We chose to do what was wrong according to our free will.

Lol!

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

your's that we should try and seperate the post from the poster.

I think that's the only way to debate. If we fail to separate the poster from his posts we'll fall into ad-hominem arguments, petty insults and general tom-foolery.

ScumLord

I'm open to the idea of a god creator but the holly books are nothing more than interesting historical records of what people thought of the world 2000 years ago. Science has shown us that if anything the books are against any god there may be because they conflict with what we actually see in the real world which is the only evidence we have of god, should he exist.

When people quote the bible the are quoting ignorant people, not god. I don't mean ignorant in a bad way either they just hadn't a clue what they where on about.

lmaopml

Malty_T wrote: »

Ideally that's brilliant. Practically it's not. No matter how hard you try you are never going to make this argument in any way more objective. Philogos believes in God, He's a real entity who had a real impact in Philogos's life. Every argument he makes is in light of the fact that God impacted in his life and is merely thus a self rationalisation of his beliefs. That may seem harsh but the proof is in the posting, push him on any issue from abortion to death and he'll usually just end up with 'I believe' regardless of how flawed his argument turns out to be.

For some people, they could not personally fathom the idea of saying "**** off you assehole" to their God. If they cannot do that then no amount of logic, objective reasoning is going to make them doubt their position on one various aspect or another. It just leads to time wasted. If you want to have a dialectic with them you're gonna first have to dabble in the emotional side of things. Sure that may seem unconventional and defy common sense, but it's what works. Take anybody out of their comfort zone and their rational minds suddenly starts to kick in. This applies to all of us and anyone who thinks it is logic that persuades a crowd really needs to luck at democracy in action with a microscope. As long as a world without God appears bleak to philogos, or conversely the world with God appears terrible to the non believer you guys are just going to keep going in circles ad infinitum.

There is a difference between 'dabbling in the emotional side of things..' and reading through this thread, some of what could only be called ( in my opinion ) nasty personal abuse by a number of posters. Some of the vitriolic personal posts were actually eyewatering ( Pot and Kettle stuff )

Personal abuse has the effect of hindering any kind of dialogue, and in actual fact only undermines Atheists imo. This is where Richard Dawkins comes in and has given Atheists a voice and encouragement to speak out for their rights, which is of course a good thing.....However, where speaking out to have rights crosses over into nastiness for the sake of it is where Richards cause is undermining itself - and the whole thing turns to incoherent 'noise'.

Some posters have spoken 'with' Phil and some have done nothing but speak 'at' Phil. A world of difference, and one that is very clear apparently to others reading through....

philologos

Malty T: There is the presumption that not believing in a God is actually rational. Misplaced skepticism can be as irrational as misplaced belief.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: There is the presumption that not believing in a God is actually rational. Misplaced skepticism can be as irrational as misplaced belief.

I don't see how it could be irrational to not hold a belief in God?

Turtwig

lmaopml wrote: »

There is a difference between 'dabbling in the emotional side of things..' and reading through this thread, some of what could only be called ( in my opinion ) nasty personal abuse by a number of posters. Some of the vitriolic personal posts were actually eyewatering ( Pot and Kettle stuff )

Personal abuse has the effect of hindering any kind of dialogue, and in actual fact only undermines Atheists imo. This is where Richard Dawkins comes in and has given Atheists a voice and encouragement to speak out for their rights, which is of course a good thing.....However, where speaking out to have rights crosses over into nastiness for the sake of it is where Richards cause is undermining itself - and the whole thing turns to incoherent 'noise'.

Some posters have spoken 'with' Phil and some have done nothing but speak 'at' Phil. A world of difference, and one that is very clear apparently to others reading through....

Oh yeah, personally attacks and slurs are useless wholly agree there. I'm certainly not advocating that type of approach.:)

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: There is the presumption that not believing in a God is actually rational. Misplaced skepticism can be as irrational as misplaced belief.

God damn it why do you insist on calling me Malty T? I'm tempted to remove you from my buddy list (jk). Firstly it's an underscore and secondly I hate the damn 'T'! Please just use Malty or Malt. Thank you.:)

I never made that presumption. All I am stating is you have emotional connection with God. Whether or not believing in God or not believing in God is rational is irrelevant here.
(I would argue that both viewpoints could be rational. Although I would argue that there can be no such thing as misplaced skepticism. We should be skeptical about everything. )

coffee_cake

calm down there mr t...


/run

Freddie59

Malty_T wrote: »

All I am stating is you have emotional connection with God.

Malty T (:D) - it's a bond of faith. Big difference.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I never made that presumption. All I am stating is you have emotional connection with God. Whether or not believing in God or not believing in God is rational is irrelevant here.
(I would argue that both viewpoints could be rational. Although I would argue that there can be no such thing as misplaced skepticism. We should be skeptical about everything. )

It's hugely relevant. If we are to establish if God exists the emotions are one thing but we also need to explore the reasons.

gvn wrote: »

I don't see how it could be irrational to not hold a belief?

Many people doubt that the earth is round. That's irrational skepticism as I would see it.

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

I think that's the only way to debate. If we fail to separate the poster from his posts we'll fall into ad-hominem arguments, petty insults and general tom-foolery.

... or expose the actual horror of the implications of some of these beliefs.

My sense is that many non believers take with a pinch of salt what philologos says (because we just don't think its real). I take him at his word and I find it disturbing. I know that many common or garden christians believe in hell, but I think in quite a casual way; philologos has clearly considered this deeply - his belief that it is just that my friend should be punished for eternity is a considered belief.

Honestly, I can't imagine a comparable viewpoint that, if it wasn't based in religion, we would be as tolerant as we are about.

Turtwig

gvn wrote: »

I don't see how it could be irrational to not hold a belief?

Well if you take the example of Scully from X-Files she lived in a fictional world where paranormal activity was real, common place and she experienced it frequently. The only rational position for her would be to believe in some sort of paranormal activity. Yet she chose not to believe.
Another would be not believing someone loves you, when they clearly do.

dpe

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: There is the presumption that not believing in a God is actually rational. Misplaced skepticism can be as irrational as misplaced belief.

There is no such thing as "misplaced skepticism". You're simply trying to obfuscate. Not believing in God is a rational act because there is a total lack of verifiable evidence of a higher power as described in the bible, and skepticism should be a default position in pretty much any human endeavour.

twinQuins

philologos wrote: »

I can't prove that I exist as a material being on a philosophical level. There are many things I can't prove.[...]

That's nice, I still don't see what it has to do with proving your god exists.

It does have a lot to do with establishing a premise where it's impossible to prove anything exists so the question is pointless but that's just a deflection tactic - a red herring.

Every time the question is asked the same epistemological and ontological whataboutery is given and frankly it's just a little bit exasperating at this stage.
If you don't want to, or can't, answer just say so but don't hide behind this transparent deflection as if it 's a neccessary component of the discussion; it's not.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: There is the presumption that not believing in a God is actually rational. Misplaced skepticism can be as irrational as misplaced belief.

That is the purest of irrationality and stupidity and it's no wonder you're religious. You're just like Bill Craig you spout the same crap over and over again regardless of evidence and reason.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Well if you take the example of Scully from X-Files she lived in a fictional world where paranormal activity was real, common place and she experienced it frequently. The only rational position for her would be to believe in some sort of paranormal activity. Yet she chose not to believe.
Another would be not believing someone loves you, when they clearly do.

I should have made my post clearer.

By holding a belief I meant a belief in God, specifically.

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

Well if you take the example of Scully from X-Files she lived in a fictional world where paranormal activity was real, common place and she experienced it frequently. The only rational position for her would be to believe in some sort of paranormal activity. Yet she chose not to believe.
Another would be not believing someone loves you, when they clearly do.

The irony being that she was a devout Catholic :pac:

dpe

Malty_T wrote: »

Well if you take the example of Scully from X-Files she lived in a fictional world where paranormal activity was real, common place and she experienced it frequently. The only rational position for her would be to believe in some sort of paranormal activity. Yet she chose not to believe.
Another would be not believing someone loves you, when they clearly do.

That's not quite right though is it? Skepticism is the default start position. In the X-Files (and don't forget this was written to give creative tension between the protagonists, so its exaggerated) she wasn't skeptical once something became proven. In your second example, once again, if someone you didn't know said "I love you", you would rightly be skeptical. If, by experience, someone you knew well said it, you could make a judgement call on the available facts. In religion you have no facts, and never will have.

philologos

twinQuins wrote: »

That's nice, I still don't see what it has to do with proving your god exists.

It can't be proven just as most other things can't be proven outside of mathematics. That's my point. I've given a different model of discussion we could use.

Proof and no proof is a dead end for both of us.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

It's hugely relevant. If we are to establish if God exists the emotions are one thing but we also need to explore the reasons.

See, this is funny. I agree with you but I also realise that you're still misunderstanding me. So, let me try to clarify. I'm proposing that you have an emotional connection to God and the truth of my claim is irrelevant to whether not having a belief in God is rational or not.

The reason why I mentioned it irrelevant in the first place is because you misconstrued my older post as claiming that believing in God is irrational. When I did no such thing. I merely just pointed out your emotional connection with God and the impact He has had on your life. So this is all kind of one big misunderstanding. I wholly agree that believing in God is probably rational and that we need to explore the reasons but whether it is rational or not and the exploration of those reasons is irrelevant to my claim about you having a relationship with God being true or not.

dpe

philologos wrote: »

It can't be proven just as most other things can't be proven outside of mathematics. That's my point. I've given a different model of discussion we could use.

Proof and no proof is a dead end for both of us.

And proof in that sense is a convienient side-step for you. Let's discuss probability shall we?

Demonique

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

How is that any different from religious people ridiculing athiests or people of other religions?

philologos

dpe wrote: »

And proof in that sense is a convienient side-step for you. Let's discuss probability shall we?

I don't see how it is more a convenient side-step for me than for anyone else. I'm interested in having a good discussion, nothing more nothing less. Veiled accusations of being disingenuous are just lazy.

Demonique wrote: »

How is that any different from religious people ridiculing athiests or people of other religions?

I think most of us would see that as equally obnoxious.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

calm down there mr t...


/run

Shut it Mr Wolf!.:p

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

It can't be proven just as most other things can't be proven outside of mathematics. That's my point. I've given a different model of discussion we could use.

Proof and no proof is a dead end for both of us.

Absolute proof is non-existent. However when we go back to the discussion of what is most probable the Christian God does not take lead over the Viking Gods or the Greek Gods or any other God. The basic concept of God does not take lead over any other unknowable idea that has been conceived in the past.

God cannot be proven. It is unfalsifiable. There is no rational reason to assume the existence of God. It requires a subjective leap outside of the realms of reason. And once we take that leap there is no reason not to believe in the infinite Gods there could be, regardless of how conflicting those beliefs may be.

Calibos

Can't get your head around the intricate theory of evolution??

You have a brain fart when you try and comprehend the notion of 'before' the universe when time actually only came into being with the universe?

Your brain nearly explodes when you try to comprehend why there is something rather than nothing or why indeed there would be nothing instead of something?

Don't worry, someone already thought about these things for you!!

A tribe of bronze Obsidian age goat llama herders from a dry desert mountainous region of the Eastern Mediterranean Andes circa 1000bc have already contemplated the mysterious of existence and the cosmos for you!!

Praise be to Yahweh Viracocha!!

philologos

I don't believe people should assume God's existence but they should think about what reason there is for it. I believe that there are strong reasons and that's why I'm a Christian.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe people should assume God's existence but they should think about what reason there is for it. I believe that there are strong reasons and that's why I'm a Christian.

why god -> why your particular god

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe people should assume God's existence but they should think about what reason there is for it. I believe that there are strong reasons and that's why I'm a Christian.

Do you believe those reasons are rational? That if they were presented to leading experts in the fields of science, philosophy or what-have-you that they would be convincing? Or are they personal reasons that apply to you and you alone?

If it's the latter then that's fine. If it's the former I'd be interested in hearing one or two.

Turtwig

dpe wrote: »

That's not quite right though is it? Skepticism is the default start position. In the X-Files (and don't forget this was written to give creative tension between the protagonists, so its exaggerated) she wasn't skeptical once something became proven. In your second example, once again, if someone you didn't know said "I love you", you would rightly be skeptical. If, by experience, someone you knew well said it, you could make a judgement call on the available facts. In religion you have no facts, and never will have.

Well my memory of X-Files is vague but I always regarded her as pseudoskeptical idiot. Alas, I cannot really give clear cut examples of her stupidity. So I'll just concede that it's not right. I do believe though Skepticism should be default position not just for the start but for eternity.

As for the lover, if you someone you never met said I love you it would be far from clear that they loved you. As for religion having no facts, that's a tentative one there is an element of the supernatural to them but there is also human drama and story in them that sometimes correlate with historical events. Sometimes...