Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Peregrinus

But all you're doing there is pointing to instances of religious people beleiving things without evidence. That does nothing to back up your claim that religions people are more likely to do this than non-religious people.

And in fact as you yourself admit, you hold that belief without evidence. You hold it for a combination of reasons which may include things like: it makes sense to you; it's something you want to believe; it's something which, if true, validates or confirms some of your choices. And these, of course, are all reasons for which religious people hold the beliefs they do.

In short, you're a textbook example of the fact that non-religious people can hold unevidenced beliefs just as readily as religious people, and for much the same reasons. You're the living refutation of your own belief. Ironic or what? ;-)

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus, in my defence, religious people are more likely to believe things without evidence. If we take a christian who is devout (not just your average cultural christian here in Ireland who baptises the kids merely to get them into school), someone who believes the bible to a high degree. They don't have evidence for the trustworthiness of the bible, but that doesn't stop them. From there, they then pile on unsupported belief on top of unsupported belief: God created the universe, there were indeed an Adam and Eve, Moses did lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, etc etc. Eventually we get things like the snake handling churches in the US: without this prior unsupported belief that the bible is true, those people in those churches wouldn't be handling venomous snakes.

That does nothing to back up your claim that religions people are more likely to do this than non-religious people.

If I'm able to point to all the various religions that all make these fantastical claims without evidence, and then point to the high number of people who subscribe to these religions, wouldn't that validate the claim that religious people are more likely to believe things without evidence?

Harika

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If I'm able to point to all the various religions that all make these fantastical claims without evidence, and then point to the high number of people who subscribe to these religions, wouldn't that validate the claim that religious people are more likely to believe things without evidence?

Another point would be climate change deniers http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/ that deny the evidence of the climate change. No independent info was found for anti-vaxers and homeopathy, but my guess as here again evidence stands against belief my intuition would tell me there is a high rate of religious people to be found. Take in consideration that in the US religious people can opt-out of vaccinations based on their belief.

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

But all you're doing there is pointing to instances of religious people beleiving things without evidence. That does nothing to back up your claim that religions people are more likely to do this than non-religious people.

Surely 100% of religious people believe things without evidence. That is what religion - faith - is all about? This leads to stuff about St Anthony finding things for you and the Child of Prague guaranteeing a fine day for a wedding, and those newspaper things, I forget what they are called, where people guarantee that if you say a prayer 9 times you will get what you wish for. It also leads to believing that religious leaders are totally reliable and if one tells you something, it is true. Which led to a great deal of child and other abuse.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Peregrinus, in my defence, religious people are more likely to believe things without evidence. If we take a christian who is devout (not just your average cultural christian here in Ireland who baptises the kids merely to get them into school), someone who believes the bible to a high degree. They don't have evidence for the trustworthiness of the bible, but that doesn't stop them. From there, they then pile on unsupported belief on top of unsupported belief: God created the universe, there were indeed an Adam and Eve, Moses did lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, etc etc. Eventually we get things like the snake handling churches in the US: without this prior unsupported belief that the bible is true, those people in those churches wouldn't be handling venomous snakes.

If I'm able to point to all the various religions that all make these fantastical claims without evidence, and then point to the high number of people who subscribe to these religions, wouldn't that validate the claim that religious people are more likely to believe things without evidence?

Well, no, Rik, it wouldn't. Think about it. You've got no data on the propensity of non-religious people to believe things without experience, and without that you obviously have no evidence that the propensity of religious people to do so is greater. You can't say one quantity is greater than another unless you know what both quantities are.

And I would point out that when you get into things like snake-handling, you've got something which the vast majority of religious people neither believe nor practice. So what you actually have there is evidence that there is a limit to the willingness of religious people to believe without evidence - different limits for different people, obviously, but clearly for most religious believers the limit is well below snake-handling.

On the other hand, look at a more widely-held religious belief like, say creation. (I'm not talking about creationism here, now, but just creation.) True, there is no evidence for this belief, but equally there is no evidence for any of the nonreligious alternative accounts for the phenomenon of existence. It's not as though believers in creation are ignoring inconsistent evidence, or are accept a belief which is more unevidenced than alternative nonreligious beliefs, such as a nonbeliever might hold.

Given all this, then, have you any evidence that the propensity of a religious person to accept unevidenced beliefs is at a higher level than that of nonreligious people? I don't thinkyou do. All we know about non-religious people is that they don't accept unevidenced religious beliefs. We have no data on their propensity to accept unevidenced nonreligious beliefs, but common observation suggests that they are not, as a class, averse to embracing unevidenced beliefs, provided they are not religious. In fact, I note that since I first pointed out that your belief on this very point was unevidenced, two other nonbelievers have weighed in to indicate that they share your belief, though neither of them have offered any data at all on the propensity of non-religious people to accept unevidenced belief, or even acknowledged the need for data. QED, I think.

looksee

What I was saying is not a belief on my part, it is a statement that the whole point of religion is that people believe it without any facts, that is why it is called faith.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

What I was saying is not a belief on my part, it is a statement that the whole point of religion is that people believe it without any facts, that is why it is called faith.

Yes. But you're still not producing any evidence that less than 100% of nonreligious people believe unevidenced things. My suggestion is that perhaps all humans do this; they just make different choices or have different preferences about what kinds of beliefs they embrace. And they just have varying levels of awareness that this is, in fact, what they are doing.

The belief that atheists are less prone to accepting unevidenced beliefs might be comforting or reassuring or affirming to atheists. But this, of course, might be the very reason why an atheist would embrace this - so far unevidenced - belief.

Drumpot

I choose to believe in a higher power. I've seen little evidence either backing it up or dismissing it's merits. I don't have a problem with a person being atheist so I would expect the same respect afforded to my belief.

i am but a layman in terms of science but I find astronomy fascinating. I also find the assumptions and theories extremely interesting to understand. Our human physical interaction with the universe stops at the moon. Anything else is observed by satellites or man made telescope. Our understanding of things light years away is based on maths, periodic table and making theory's of what might make up a planet based on its color (gases etc).

Up until recently it was thought that only certain criteria can harbour life but a moon on Jupiter changed all that. The gravitational pull of the planet heats up its core and means there's a chance that life may exist beneath the ice.

Why is this relevant to this topic? Beacause our understanding of our own solar system is still extremely infantile, I don't understand how people can speak scientifically with confidence on this subject. I think it's comparable with the science community thinking the world was square and the centre of the universe. Our understandinh of the universe really is that limited!

The absence of evidence on either side of the argument doesn't reallu facilitate an objective debate. I think most of these debates are subjective with prejudices on either side and an arrogance taken by certain factions with an absolute stance on this topic.

Why do I believe in a higher power? Because of the miracle of life, because of the beauty of the universe and our planet. There have been times when I felt spiritually dead when I lost my faith. Believing in a higher power has given me a strength and happiness in life that no man made substance or therapy has managed to do.

I personally find it harder to believe that we live in organised chaos. I don't think the idea of a higher being is any more crazy then the thought of us all coming from nothing. Science may have a way of explaining this theory and it may even make sense to science nerds, but it's just a theory based on a scientific community that constantly has to correct it's own equations.

As I said. I love science documentaries, particularly on astronomy. But I don't think either side of this debate can speak with absolute confidence one way or another.

Peregrinus

Drumpot wrote: »

. . . i am but a layman in terms of science but I find astrology fascinating . . .

I think you mean astronomy. Best to clarify that now before you get deluged in a sea of scorn.

Drumpot

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you mean astronomy. Best to clarify that now before you get deluged in a sea of scorn.

Done , thanks for that.

Although I would presume that these are an intellectually superior bunch that wouldn't need to focus on a typo at the expense of the main point?!

marienbad

Drumpot wrote: »

Done , thanks for that.

Although I would presume that these are an intellectually superior bunch that wouldn't need to focus on a typo at the expense of the main point?!

No we always pounce on typos and burn the tyro that made them at the steak





spot the typo

looksee

Surely if we were intellectually superior we would not have to be asking these questions?

Drumpot

looksee wrote: »

Surely if we were intellectually superior we would not have to be asking these questions?

I would of thought a person who is intellectually superior with a grounded ego (is there such a thing ) would be extremely interested in the god debate and if truly objective would come to the conclusion that there isn't really enough evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion.

We haven't even fully explored our own planet let alone our solar system, yet we are in a position to make "informed" theories on the beginning of the universe?! Its pure hubris to make a statement that there is or isn't a god, but given humanity's self absorbed egotistical nature its not surprising these kind of debates can cause such a fuss.

Harika

Drumpot wrote: »

I would of thought a person who is intellectually superior with a grounded ego would be extremely interested in the god debate and if truly objective would come to the conclusion that there isn't really enough evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion.

We haven't even fully explored our own planet let alone our solar system, yet we are in a position to make "informed" theories on the beginning of the universe?! Its pure hubris to make a statement that there is or isn't a god, but given humanity's self absorbed egotistical nature its not surprising these kind of debates can cause such a fuss.

Oh it was clarified already several times here and in the old thread that we will never be able confirm the (non) existence of god, by theists and atheists.
Why are we still discussing here? Fun maybe, everyone has its own motivation.

Drumpot

Harika wrote: »

Oh it was clarified already several times here and in the old thread that we will never be able confirm the (non) existence of god, by theists and atheists.
Why are we still discussing here? Fun maybe, everyone has its own motivation.

Do people really discuss "atheism/existence of god debates" for fun in a religion and spirituality forum? :P

ScumLord

Drumpot wrote: »

I would of thought a person who is intellectually superior with a grounded ego (is there such a thing ) would be extremely interested in the god debate and if truly objective would come to the conclusion that there isn't really enough evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion.

We haven't even fully explored our own planet let alone our solar system, yet we are in a position to make "informed" theories on the beginning of the universe?! Its pure hubris to make a statement that there is or isn't a god, but given humanity's self absorbed egotistical nature its not surprising these kind of debates can cause such a fuss.

I find the history of religion fascinating. While we may not be able to fully discount a god like thing creating the universe I think we can discount the Christian/Islamic/Juda version of god, or any version of god. The idea that people 3000 years ago could have explained the universe perfectly in a short book they came up with just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't trust ancient people are able to explain any of the workings of the universe or the human condition better than we can today and the fact we can do better than the bible shows it wasn't written by an all knowing god.

looksee

Drumpot wrote: »

Do people really discuss "atheism/existence of god debates" for fun in a religion and spirituality forum? :P

Well i am not discussing it because I expect to convert anyone, or be converted myself. And the big advantage is that both sides can think they have won.

tommy2bad

Drumpot wrote: »

Do people really discuss "atheism/existence of god debates" for fun in a religion and spirituality forum? :P

I resemble that remark!

ScumLord, just to pick up on your remark here;

I don't trust ancient people are able to explain any of the workings of the universe or the human condition better than we can today and the fact we can do better than the bible shows it wasn't written by an all knowing god.

Apart from the Koran I don't think any of the Abrahamic religions claim the books were written by God. It's more that they are the inspired word of God. A subtitle difference from the dictated word of God.

Also don't dismiss the ancients ability to understand the human condition. The Iliad still stands the test of time. Lets not even mention the Epic of Gilgamesh least some smart aleck say 'but the bible is the same story plagiarized'

RikuoAmero

I resemble that remark!

...resemble?

looksee

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...resemble?

Its a meme :P get with the lingo...or something :pac:

Waerobic Woxajack

I am an Irish Catholic. A believer in marriage between man and woman. A believer in the family unit. I work for a living as a farmer. I pay my taxes. Problem is that such beliefs are being marginalised.

First off it is important to point out I am not homophobic or pro the forceful conversion of atheists to religion. What I am against is the loud atheists in the media who spout their opinions and that their views are the guideline for to follow.

Vehicles like The Late Late Show, the Sunday Independent and other such platforms are full of sinful and godless ways where crude sex, vulgarity and self importance are a way of life. So called journalists, self appointed experts on everything.

Why are atheists ranging from Richard Dawkins to Ian O'Doherty to so-called Panti given such platforms while I never see a bishop or a priest on these shows anymore. Why do cruel, atheist TV shows like The Voice of Ireland continue to be promoted despite their sinful treatment of people? I for one am tired of having this cruel take on atheism shoved down my throat by Ryan Tubridy and his kind. Tubridy apparently does believe in god according to the newspaper wing of his employer:

independent.ie/irish-news/tubridy-rediscovers-his-catholic-faith-26212388.html

But I hate his show as it is full of insufferable atheists full of their own self importance.

PopePalpatine

You must be really kicking yourself knowing that Russia's not Catholic.

RikuoAmero

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

I am an Irish Catholic. A believer in marriage between man and woman. A believer in the family unit. I work for a living as a farmer. I pay my taxes. Problem is that such beliefs are being marginalised.

First off it is important to point out I am not homophobic or pro the forceful conversion of atheists to religion. What I am against is the loud atheists in the media who spout their opinions and that their views are the guideline for to follow.

Vehicles like The Late Late Show, the Sunday Independent and other such platforms are full of sinful and godless ways where crude sex, vulgarity and self importance are a way of life. So called journalists, self appointed experts on everything.

Why are atheists ranging from Richard Dawkins to Ian O'Doherty to so-called Panti given such platforms while I never see a bishop or a priest on these shows anymore. Why do cruel, atheist TV shows like The Voice of Ireland continue to be promoted despite their sinful treatment of people? I for one am tired of having this cruel take on atheism shoved down my throat by Ryan Tubridy and his kind. Tubridy apparently does believe in god according to the newspaper wing of his employer:

independent.ie/irish-news/tubridy-rediscovers-his-catholic-faith-26212388.html

But I hate his show as it is full of insufferable atheists full of their own self importance.

Umm...not to be rude or anything, but surely you've studied history at one point or another? You do realise that religion was and is shoved down people's throats, don't you? Does the name Archbishop McQuaid ring a bell? Didn't he "spout his opinion" and say that "his views are the guidelines to follow" when he more or less dictated the early constitution?

Waerobic Woxajack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Umm...not to be rude or anything, but surely you've studied history at one point or another? You do realise that religion was and is shoved down people's throats, don't you? Does the name Archbishop McQuaid ring a bell? Didn't he "spout his opinion" and say that "his views are the guidelines to follow" when he more or less dictated the early constitution?

I am well aware of that name, actually and it was McQuaid's attitude that did a lot of damage thus allowing in our godless, vulgar, rude, obscene culture we have today. Now he is replaced by equally hardline atheists with whom the media are besotted with.

RikuoAmero

Why do cruel, atheist TV shows like The Voice of Ireland continue to be promoted despite their sinful treatment of people?

I'm really intrigued by this part of your comment, Waerobic. I've never watched Voice, but in looking it up, I've learned it's basically like the X Factor. So what it makes it cruel? What makes it atheist? What part of their treatment of people is "sinful"?

Delirium

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

I am an Irish Catholic. A believer in marriage between man and woman. A believer in the family unit. I work for a living as a farmer. I pay my taxes. Problem is that such beliefs are being marginalised.

First off it is important to point out I am not homophobic or pro the forceful conversion of atheists to religion. What I am against is the loud atheists in the media who spout their opinions and that their views are the guideline for to follow.

Vehicles like The Late Late Show, the Sunday Independent and other such platforms are full of sinful and godless ways where crude sex, vulgarity and self importance are a way of life. So called journalists, self appointed experts on everything.

Why are atheists ranging from Richard Dawkins to Ian O'Doherty to so-called Panti given such platforms while I never see a bishop or a priest on these shows anymore. Why do cruel, atheist TV shows like The Voice of Ireland continue to be promoted despite their sinful treatment of people? I for one am tired of having this cruel take on atheism shoved down my throat by Ryan Tubridy and his kind. Tubridy apparently does believe in god according to the newspaper wing of his employer:

independent.ie/irish-news/tubridy-rediscovers-his-catholic-faith-26212388.html

But I hate his show as it is full of insufferable atheists full of their own self importance.

The Voice of Ireland is an atheist TV show? I thought it was a singing show.

PopePalpatine

SW wrote: »

The Voice of Ireland is an atheist TV show? I thought it was a singing show.

It's atheistic compared to Glór Tíre, begorrah!

RikuoAmero

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

I am well aware of that name, actually and it was McQuaid's attitude that did a lot of damage thus allowing in our godless, vulgar, rude, obscene culture we have today. Now he is replaced by equally hardline atheists with whom the media are besotted with.

What I was getting at there is that when you were busy throwing stones at us loud atheists, you were saying so while deliberately ignoring the fact that religion has done the very things both in the past and today that you're decrying in us. In other words, being a hypocrite.
Now, if you find fault in some people, that's okay. But to decry certain publications or shows for being atheist or of adopting an atheist outlook (I don't know whether your accusations of such for the Independent and the other titles you listed is true, since I rarely read or watch them)...is kinda attacking freedom of speech.
You can disagree with certain outlooks and points of view. What you cannot and must not do is disagree with people having them, as in, you don't think they should have these other points of view different to what you like.

Also, about your complaining of there not being any priests or bishops on shows...so what? That just means that the market has spoken i.e. more than likely, when a priest is on a show, ratings go down. It means that people just don't want to listen to them. After all, look at Pope Frankie. Recently he said that not having a child is selfish...this coming from a childless head of a religion where every member of the priesthood is (ostensibly) celibate. When you've got the head of your religion spewing what is clearly hypocritical insanity like that, why would anyone want to hear from Father Joe Blow?

Waerobic Woxajack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What I was getting at there is that when you were busy throwing stones at us loud atheists, you were saying so while deliberately ignoring the fact that religion has done the very things both in the past and today that you're decrying in us. In other words, being a hypocrite.
Now, if you find fault in some people, that's okay. But to decry certain publications or shows for being atheist or of adopting an atheist outlook (I don't know whether your accusations of such for the Independent and the other titles you listed is true, since I rarely read or watch them)...is kinda attacking freedom of speech.
You can disagree with certain outlooks and points of view. What you cannot and must not do is disagree with people having them, as in, you don't think they should have these other points of view different to what you like.

Also, about your complaining of there not being any priests or bishops on shows...so what? That just means that the market has spoken i.e. more than likely, when a priest is on a show, ratings go down. It means that people just don't want to listen to them. After all, look at Pope Frankie. Recently he said that not having a child is selfish...this coming from a childless head of a religion where every member of the priesthood is (ostensibly) celibate. When you've got the head of your religion spewing what is clearly hypocritical insanity like that, why would anyone want to hear from Father Joe Blow?

At no point did I say views I do not agree with should be suppressed. What I said was the media at present is just promoting one viewpoint.

I am not going to sit here and deny there is no such thing as wrong done in the name of religion. Just have to mention words. Islamic State. Iraq and Syria. Clerical abuse. McQuaid. Any forced believe is wrong in my view.

But I have a right to speak freely about what is on the screen. I pay for it afterall. And I should have a say on what is shown along with everyone else. Why should I have to hear some trashy, vulgar, talentless jack come on spouting their opinions while using bad language passing it off as comedy. I mean stuff like Katherine Lynch, Mrs Brown. Sinful obscene smutty drivel made by fake Dublinfourers seriously out of touch with the rest of us. Brown is from the northside and Lynch is a culchie from Monaghan. So they are not even real. Are we lacking in talent so much that this is all we can be shown??

I have atheist friend btw and there are good atheists. For the record, I would still dislike all above mentioned jacks like Brown, Lynch, Panti, Tubridy, O'Doherty, Dawkins, etc. if they were Catholics. They are so talentless and what they say is agenda driven offensive nonsense.

Delirium

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

But I have a right to speak freely about what is on the screen. I pay for it afterall. And I should have a say on what is shown along with everyone else. Why should I have to hear some trashy, vulgar, talentless jack come on spouting their opinions while using bad language passing it off as comedy. I mean stuff like Katherine Lynch, Mrs Brown. Sinful obscene smutty drivel made by fake Dublinfourers seriously out of touch with the rest of us. Brown is from the northside and Lynch is a culchie from Monaghan. So they are not even real. Are we lacking in talent so much that this is all we can be shown??

I have atheist friend btw and there are good atheists. For the record, I would still dislike all above mentioned jacks like Brown, Lynch, Panti, Tubridy, O'Doherty, Dawkins, etc. if they were Catholics. They are so talentless and what they say is agenda driven offensive nonsense.

Please keep to the topic, i.e. atheism/ existence of God.

Your dislike of Irish TV programmes is off-topic.

Please remember this for any future contributions to this thread.

Thanks for your attention.