Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

How do atheists have morals?

12357…10

Comments

  • #122
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Pure nonsense again. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christians do worse science than non-Christians (in universities and the like).

    I think you're losing track here. As I acknowledged several posts ago, I would expect a christian scientist to perform as well as a non-believing scientist. However, there has to be a certain level of cognitive dissonance to enable someone to be both a scientist a believer. How do you spend all day examining, strengthening and rejecting evidence for a particular conclusion while completely abandoning the need for evidence in your personal philosophy? I'm a scientist - sifting evidence isn't a job I do, it's part of my personality and I hope it makes me a good scientist. Consequently, the desire for evidence reaches out to other parts of my life - I can't shut that off - and that feature of my persona is distinctly incompatible with a belief in god.
    I think that it is worthy of assessment and thought.

    I have considered and assessed the various proposals of believers and I find them to be bigotted, downright sinister and completely extraneous to modern society. There, now I've considered it, can I reject it?
    I never said that it was.

    You stated considering the atheist POV and that you would extend that to "other faiths". Therefore, you regard atheism as a faith.
    Although in some cases people do seem to have a lot of conviction that God doesn't exist.

    Some people may consider that position more likely than the alternative (I am certainly one of them). I suspect you will struggle to find someone willing to argue the statement "god definitely does not exist". Even Dawkins doesn't go that far.
    Indeed. Christianity is an intellectually satisfying life ideology that people devote study to all around the world whether they believe in it or not. In fact Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle amongst others are regarded as philosophers in their own right in academia.

    Unless you are claiming that philosophy isn't academia.

    Eh? Are you a philosopher? I might have thought your logic skills would be a little sharper then. Although, I seem to remember you claiming that you could logically argue for the existence of god some posts back. I have yet to see evidence of this. As you will by now have realised, this means that I do not believe you have such skills.
    I think it is anti-intellectualism to reject what people have to say immediately without thought or consideration, especially if it has huge implications for how one lives their life.

    How can you reject what people say immediately? Perhaps I have misled you into thinking that I would see a christian speaking and switch off without hearing any of it. I apologise if this is what you thought I was saying. Unfortunately, my brain doesn't work that quickly and I usually manage to process about half a sentence before my ears get turned off...
    It's a fallacious comparison. You are equating Christianity and slavery.

    No. read what I wrote - you still haven't answered.


  • #123
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    PDN wrote: »
    The evidence suggests otherwise. The forms of Abrahamic religion that are more ecumenical are those that are in decline. The fastest growing religious movements in the world are fundamentalist forms of Islam and Christianity. Even within Catholicism all the growth occurs in nations where Catholicism is more conservative - whereas Catholicism is in a tailspin decline where is becomes fluffy and a la carte.
    Surely when people start embracing a la carte Catholicism it's already in decline. i.e. It's not declining because of the less strict adherence to doctrine - that's just a displayed symptom of a society that doesn't want/need it any more?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I disagree with you. Religion and science are dealing with different questions. If they were dealing with the exact same questions, there would probably be some form of incompatibility.
    I have heard that so many times and yet it still has no grounds in reality.


  • #124
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I think you're losing track here. As I acknowledged several posts ago, I would expect a christian scientist to perform as well as a non-believing scientist. However, there has to be a certain level of cognitive dissonance to enable someone to be both a scientist a believer. How do you spend all day examining, strengthening and rejecting evidence for a particular conclusion while completely abandoning the need for evidence in your personal philosophy? I'm a scientist - sifting evidence isn't a job I do, it's part of my personality and I hope it makes me a good scientist. Consequently, the desire for evidence reaches out to other parts of my life - I can't shut that off - and that feature of my persona is distinctly incompatible with a belief in god.

    If that feature of your persona is incompatible with a belief in God, that's your personal situation. For other people God enhances their interest in science, they explore science as a means of furthering their understanding of God's creation. I've talked to people who say that biology and other sciences fascinate them, because it goes into the depth and the sophistication of what God has given us as human beings.

    Believing in God doesn't mean shutting off your brain, in fact generally it means opening it. The Biblical text is one of the most influential, if not the most influential on the English language. Likewise, it is intellectually satisfying from a philosophical point of view. I.E it complements thought rather than going against it. Many irreligious philosophers have conceded this point.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I have considered and assessed the various proposals of believers and I find them to be bigotted, downright sinister and completely extraneous to modern society. There, now I've considered it, can I reject it?

    I can't be certain because I do not know your experience. However, even if they were bigoted (which I believe to be a load of nonsense from reading the Biblical texts but let's carry on) that doesn't remove the possibility of them being true. That would involve forming a rational rejection of these beliefs.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    You stated considering the atheist POV and that you would extend that to "other faiths". Therefore, you regard atheism as a faith.

    If that is what you took from my post, I can say now that you have misread it. I meant other faiths to Christianity. I'm not going to get into semantics however, let's keep on topic shall we?
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Some people may consider that position more likely than the alternative (I am certainly one of them). I suspect you will struggle to find someone willing to argue the statement "god definitely does not exist". Even Dawkins doesn't go that far.

    I find people unwilling to argue why they believe God is not likely to exist let alone going into absolutes. For the most part atheists only are interested in throwing questions at believers.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Eh? Are you a philosopher? I might have thought your logic skills would be a little sharper then. Although, I seem to remember you claiming that you could logically argue for the existence of god some posts back. I have yet to see evidence of this. As you will by now have realised, this means that I do not believe you have such skills.

    A philosophy student, and a computer science student (studying for a dual BA, B.Phil)

    As for the "logic skills". My logic skills are rather sharp, I don't need you or anyone else to explain that to me unless you are willing to put reasons to your misinformed statements.

    I've argued for the existence of God several times on this forum, and elsewhere on boards.ie. If necessary I can also cite books and materials that you can read if you want to see how people have presented evidence for God's existence.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    How can you reject what people say immediately? Perhaps I have misled you into thinking that I would see a christian speaking and switch off without hearing any of it. I apologise if this is what you thought I was saying. Unfortunately, my brain doesn't work that quickly and I usually manage to process about half a sentence before my ears get turned off...

    I wonder how thoroughly you've looked into Christianity before rejecting it. If it is based on what people have told you it is lacking.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    No. read what I wrote - you still haven't answered.

    I'm not going to answer anything that likens teaching about Christianity to slavery as it is mere sidetracking.


  • #125
    eoin5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for the "logic skills". My logic skills are rather sharp...

    The computer science type of logic, predicate logic, deals with statements of truth based on assumptions. Its a human invention that helps us to think and is excellent for designing systems, but theres no real truth in any of it. Basically its not something you apply in the real world.

    Whats wrong with using probability and statistics?


  • #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nothing is wrong with probability or statistics. My main points concerning God involve that His existence is more probable than not.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    eoin5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nothing is wrong with probability or statistics. My main points concerning God involve that His existence is more probable than not.

    Ah, youre no Kurt Godel then. Apologies for derail, continue :D


  • #128
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nothing is wrong with probability or statistics. My main points concerning God involve that His existence is more probable than not.

    Ok Jakkass, explain how the Judeo-Christian God's existence is more probable than not...


  • #129
    dragonsgates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭dragonsgates


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nothing is wrong with probability or statistics. My main points concerning God involve that His existence is more probable than not.

    Jackass. Fair play to you.

    Even with all the nonsense you spout about logic and fact you cannot be kept down. You are like a terminator.

    I agree that there is a tiny, minute, immeasurable possibility that there could be a God - creator - designer etc, but surely if there was and I mean a big IF, he was only responsible for the initial big bang and nothing else.

    That was approx 13.7 billion years ago.

    Since then our solar system fluked into existense, (star explosion no less) forming dust clouds, the familiar planets and us. We are flukes because we have a stable sun, a molten centre, a moon, and we live in the habitable zone. THATS THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE.

    Any creator who (IF) designed the original would have no idea what was going to happen.

    In a galaxy with over a billion stars, with over a billion galaxies out there, hundreds of millions of light years wide

    Why?

    (a) would he give a F*ck about us
    (b) why would he want us to pray to him
    (c) why would he leave no proof what so ever
    (d) but allegedly leave some with some people
    (e) surely religion would be fixed from the time it was invented and not interchangable to suit whomever is reading it.

    Is it not more likely that religion stemmed from superstition, and that man is really god here. We made all the rules and changed them when we wanted to, and as the population moved out of africa we all formed our own ideas after that.


  • #130
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ok Jakkass, explain how the Judeo-Christian God's existence is more probable than not...

    An extremely futile to question to ask, that you know he can't possibly answer becuase if he could we'd all be theists. I just wish he'd get the picture. Speaking from a personal perspective it was that very inability of the religious that started me tailoring my idea of God to fit with logic and reason eventually leading to Judeo-Christian agnosticism to deist agnosticism to eventual atheism.


  • #131
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ok Jakkass, explain how the Judeo-Christian God's existence is more probable than not...
    I've done this several times on this forum. It would be futile to repeat everything I have said on the subject. I'd advise you to do a google search (while the search function is down) with site:boards.ie at the end of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    dragonsgates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭dragonsgates


    PDN wrote: »
    The evidence suggests otherwise. Even within Catholicism all the growth occurs in nations where Catholicism is more conservative - whereas Catholicism is in a tailspin decline where is becomes fluffy and a la carte.

    Catholicism is growing where the majority of people are starving and uneducated.


  • #133
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've done this several times on this forum. It would be futile to repeat everything I have said on the subject. I'd advise you to do a google search (while the search function is down) with site:boards.ie at the end of it.

    No you really haven't. The most we've ever gotten out of you is "I think christian ethics are superior and I love god and I think his exitence is logical therefore I'm right" but in rather more sophisticated language.


  • #134
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If that feature of your persona is incompatible with a belief in God, that's your personal situation. For other people God enhances their interest in science, they explore science as a means of furthering their understanding of God's creation.I've talked to people who say that biology and other sciences fascinate them, because it goes into the depth and the sophistication of what God has given us as human beings.

    ...and then attempt to juxtapose what they've found on the obscure and vague "interpretations" of an old book. Isn't someone who conducts a scientific experiment as a means of "revealing god's wonder" exactly the kind of bad scientist I've been stereotyping? You can't do "science" with a closed mind.
    Believing in God doesn't mean shutting off your brain, in fact generally it means opening it.

    In your opinion. No surprise that I think the opposite. This is a dead end.
    The Biblical text is one of the most influential, if not the most influential on the English language.

    I suspect that award for the book(s) most influential on the English language were written by Shakespeare (or Marlowe, if you want). Given that the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, it seems incredibly unlikely that it had an effect on the English language.
    Likewise, it is intellectually satisfying from a philosophical point of view. I.E it complements thought rather than going against it. Many irreligious philosophers have conceded this point.

    I find a lot of books intellectually satisfying. I'm not sure what your point is.
    I can't be certain because I do not know your experience. However, even if they were bigoted (which I believe to be a load of nonsense from reading the Biblical texts but let's carry on) that doesn't remove the possibility of them being true. That would involve forming a rational rejection of these beliefs.

    I once heard a christian say that people with disablities were "unnatural freaks, a mistake by god". There are christian groups who picket funerals, chanting about sexuality, who have there 4 year old kids waving banners saying "god hates fags". That's not very nice, is it? Sound bigotted to you? And please don't tell me that the texts on homosexuality have been "misinterpreted"...That simply smacks of changing your mind for fear of looking a little bad.
    If that is what you took from my post, I can say now that you have misread it. I meant other faiths to Christianity. I'm not going to get into semantics however, let's keep on topic shall we?

    It's not semantics. You made a mistake, I corrected you.
    I find people unwilling to argue why they believe God is not likely to exist let alone going into absolutes.

    Why god is not likely to exist- there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. That's why I believe that it is incredibly unlikely that god exists. Show me some evidence and we've got a dialogue. Until you produce a verifiable and rational shred of evidence that god has ever/does/will ever exist, I am under no obligation to review my conclusions. Evidence, it can't be that hard surely, given that god is apparently everywhere, working "miracles" every day, talking to people, helping them out.

    It's not going to be much of an argument because I don't anticipate much of a comeback from you addressing this point.
    For the most part atheists only are interested in throwing questions at believers.

    Because for the most part, I can't believe that someone would actively choose to live a life with blinkers on (that's if they actively choose that life, child indoctrination and all).
    A philosophy student, and a computer science student (studying for a dual BA, B.Phil)
    As for the "logic skills". My logic skills are rather sharp, I don't need you or anyone else to explain that to me unless you are willing to put reasons to your misinformed statements.

    Give me a logical argument for the exsitence of a god.
    I've argued for the existence of God several times on this forum, and elsewhere on boards.ie. If necessary I can also cite books and materials that you can read if you want to see how people have presented evidence for God's existence.

    1. I'm new, I haven't had time to go back and read the 20,000 post threads.
    2. I'd rather hear YOU present the evidence.
    I wonder how thoroughly you've looked into Christianity before rejecting it. If it is based on what people have told you it is lacking.

    LOL. I'm rejecting it, therefore I must have missed something? Stick to your premise that you "don't know (my) experiences".
    I'm not going to answer anything that likens teaching about Christianity to slavery as it is mere sidetracking.

    They were two similar statistics, one presenting a "soft" argument for religion and one presenting a "hard" argument for slavery. The question I put to you is whether there is an argument that you would refuse to engage in, regardless of the weight of numbers behind it.

    I find it a little sinister than your instinct wasn't to immediately dismiss slavery. Although obviously to do so would weaken your position re: christianity. Some things are worth compromising though.


  • #135
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    ...and then attempt to juxtapose what they've found on the obscure and vague "interpretations" of an old book. Isn't someone who conducts a scientific experiment as a means of "revealing god's wonder" exactly the kind of bad scientist I've been stereotyping? You can't do "science" with a closed mind.

    Thanks to Biblical commentaries and exegesis based on the original language reading the Bible has become easier. It is easier to find the original context of words thanks to the scholarship that has been done by theologians.

    I'd agree you can't do science with a closed mind. I would argue that Christianity doesn't close ones mind, but opens it to new considerations.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    In your opinion. No surprise that I think the opposite. This is a dead end.

    Not just in my opinion, in my experience also. I would regard atheists as being at least equally closed minded, if not more so.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I suspect that award for the book(s) most influential on the English language were written by Shakespeare (or Marlowe, if you want). Given that the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, it seems incredibly unlikely that it had an effect on the English language.

    Ever heard of the English Reformation? The Tyndale Bible, and the King James Authorised Version (1611)? Many words had to be neologised to translate the Bible correctly such as "righteousness" which didn't exist in common English usage in this point.

    Funny that you mention Shakespeare as he was one of the people who was clearly influenced by the English translations of the Bible.

    Clicky here for a book that deals with the subject. The poetry of John Donne, and Robert Frost could also be cited. To think that the Bible although culturally very important in Anglophone countries could have no influence on English language is a bit strange to say the least.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I find a lot of books intellectually satisfying. I'm not sure what your point is.

    That people aren't stupid for assessing the Bible, or seeking to find meaning in it perhaps?
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I once heard a christian say that people with disablities were "unnatural freaks, a mistake by god".

    I don't know why I am answerable to this, but I wouldn't take the same view concerning disability.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    There are christian groups who picket funerals, chanting about sexuality, who have there 4 year old kids waving banners saying "god hates fags".

    Basing the views of 2.2 billion Christians on 70 people in Kansas isn't really a fair analysis.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    That's not very nice, is it? Sound bigotted to you? And please don't tell me that the texts on homosexuality have been "misinterpreted"...That simply smacks of changing your mind for fear of looking a little bad.

    Yes, in this case they have been. In fact they have misinterpreted Jesus' commandment not to hold anyone with scorn, and Peters command to present your beliefs with gentleness. It is entirely reasonable to say that there are misinterpretations involved.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why god is not likely to exist- there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    That's not a good reason, that would be similar to be saying "Why is God likely to exist - there is no evidence to suggest otherwise".

    That isn't a realistic answer. As for there being "absolutely no evidence" there are a lot of people who disagree with you.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    That's why I believe that it is incredibly unlikely that god exists. Show me some evidence and we've got a dialogue. Until you produce a verifiable and rational shred of evidence that god has ever/does/will ever exist, I am under no obligation to review my conclusions. Evidence, it can't be that hard surely, given that god is apparently everywhere, working "miracles" every day, talking to people, helping them out.

    I've explained above why it isn't a good reason. I could present you with the posts I have argued several times on this forum, or I could recommend you with books to read. The latter is probably more productive as the authors who I can cite will argue this in a much better fashion than I can.

    C.S Lewis Signature Classics (including "Miracles", and "Mere Christianity"),
    Lee Strobel - The Case for Faith, The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Francis Collins), Intellectuals don't need God and other common myths (Allister McGrath).
    doctoremma wrote: »
    It's not going to be much of an argument because I don't anticipate much of a comeback from you addressing this point.

    I could repost what I have said on the subject ad verbatim, but I don't think that would be ultimately positive. Although, answers are out there if you want to read for yourself (see above).
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Because for the most part, I can't believe that someone would actively choose to live a life with blinkers on (that's if they actively choose that life, child indoctrination and all).

    Despite common belief it is highly rare that people believe based purely on what they have learned as a child. Very few of the Christians I know currently have been in that situation. I personally gained faith after reading the Bible for myself, this is true of many people.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Give me a logical argument for the exsitence of a god.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    1. I'm new, I haven't had time to go back and read the 20,000 post threads.
    2. I'd rather hear YOU present the evidence.

    I have done so on this forum several times before if you wish to use the search function.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    LOL. I'm rejecting it, therefore I must have missed something? Stick to your premise that you "don't know (my) experiences".
    doctoremma wrote: »
    They were two similar statistics, one presenting a "soft" argument for religion and one presenting a "hard" argument for slavery. The question I put to you is whether there is an argument that you would refuse to engage in, regardless of the weight of numbers behind it.

    It's a loaded question, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to engage in such tactics in a discussion.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I find it a little sinister than your instinct wasn't to immediately dismiss slavery. Although obviously to do so would weaken your position re: christianity. Some things are worth compromising though.

    I've dealt with slavery on this forum before last year. It resulted in anachronisms and misinterpretations of the Old and New Testaments. An assessment of the Torah actually shows that the law actually ensured human rights rather than denying them.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055509714&page=4


  • #136
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've done this several times on this forum. It would be futile to repeat everything I have said on the subject.

    Ok, I wasn't there for that, searching is a pain, please go through em again.. just keep it to one argument at a time if you can.:)


  • #137
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    OK, these posts are getting very long so, while I've read all that you have posted, I'm going to focus back on only a couple of things. If you think I am cherry-picking, feel free to ask me to address those i have skipped.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Thanks to Biblical commentaries and exegesis based on the original language reading the Bible has become easier. It is easier to find the original context of words thanks to the scholarship that has been done by theologians.

    Sure, I hear similar arguments for how the Quran predicted quantum mechanics, or some such crap.
    Basing the views of 2.2 billion Christians on 70 people in Kansas isn't really a fair analysis.

    You asserted that the bible does not instruct in bigotry, I maintain that it does. These people are obeying the bible, are they wrong?
    Yes, in this case they have been. In fact they have misinterpreted Jesus' commandment not to hold anyone with scorn, and Peters command to present your beliefs with gentleness. It is entirely reasonable to say that there are misinterpretations involved.

    Especially when the law comes down on the other side, hey?
    That's not a good reason, that would be similar to be saying "Why is God likely to exist - there is no evidence to suggest otherwise".

    Except you have the burden of proof and just because you word the second phrase of your sentence to make it sound similar to my proposition, the double negative remains. It's symptomatic of the believer's sticky situation that it becomes necessary to get all their words tangled up in order to present a superficially valid argument.
    As for there being "absolutely no evidence" there are a lot of people who disagree with you.

    Why aren't they displaying their evidence for the world to see then? I reckon it's be a sure-fire way to really get the word out there. What better way to spread god's love? The very least you can do is not insult my intelligence and suggest there is "evidence" without telling me what it is. I need to know. This could be important, it could literally change my life. One bit of evidence and we could all bask in the glory of god, don't you want that for everyone?
    Despite common belief it is highly rare that people believe based purely on what they have learned as a child.

    That's an outrageous statement. The environment children grow up in is incredibly influential on their view of the world.
    It's a loaded question, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to engage in such tactics in a discussion.

    I won't take your answer an anything other than a genuine admission that you sometimes dismiss arguments without full consideration...


  • #138
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have done so on this forum several times before if you wish to use the search function.

    Yes indeed. Things like 11 people couldn't possibly have been dedicated to a cause or even written that they were unless they saw a guy raise from the dead with their own eyes (and verified it scientifically of course) and there is some evidence that there was a guy called Jesus in Nazareth 2000 years ago therefore all the stories about him are true. Rationality if ever I've seen it


  • #139
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes indeed. Things like 11 people couldn't possibly have been dedicated to a cause or even written that they were unless they saw a guy raise from the dead with their own eyes (and verified it scientifically of course) and there is some evidence that there was a guy called Jesus in Nazareth 2000 years ago therefore all the stories about him are true. Rationality if ever I've seen it

    Hmm, the consensus appears to be that I may have overestimated the evidence that Jakkass is able to produce. Perhaps I should bow out of this gracefully, without mentionin

    That's a shame. He's lost a Nobel Prize there.


  • #140
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Hmm, the consensus appears to be that I may have overestimated the evidence that Jakkass is able to produce. Perhaps I should bow out of this gracefully, without mentionin

    That's a shame. He's lost a Nobel Prize there.

    Computer gone mad. ...without mentioning his woeful display again ;)


  • #141
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    You know you only have to click on Jakkass' sig to find his arguments for Christianity. He doesn't need to spell them out for you here again.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ahem I had sigs disabled:o

    I just picked one, operating principle is that if I can debunk one anchor you should acknowledge that atheism is that little bit more acceptable :)
    Then we'll move onto others.
    Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
    The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
    It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
    The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
    a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
    b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
    c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
    d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
    e) God can be immediately experienced
    The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility.
    Indeed it is. Yet
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
    We have to eliminate all improbable natural reasons first before we invoke the supernatural.
    given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life.
    Indeed, supposedly if we were 5% closer to or, 15% father from the sun, humanity as we know it would perish. However, "as we know it" is the important point. We once thought that life could not list in the extremes, yet we now know that is incorrect, we now know that certain organisms will most likely outlive us. It is highly plausible for intelligent beings to evolve with other requirements for life entirely different from that of our own.
    what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means.
    As of today there are more than 500 earth like planets known to us. Given our limited scope for viewing the universe it is highly unlikely that they aren't more.
    It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable.
    Given an infinite world, the probability of anything happening is normalised to one. Science has yet to prove that the world is finite. This 'universe' may end but the nothingness(btw when physicist refer to nothing they are infact referring to 'something') from whence it came may be infinite.
    a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
    God has to be more complicated than the universe He created. How do you explain God then? If God is unknowable then why can't the universe just be unknowable instead??
    God makes sense of objective moral values.
    How??
    God can be immediately experienced
    In the past as Thor, Ba'al, Osiris, etc etc..
    And today in many different forms..Christ, Allah etc etc..
    Why so many different guises?
    Personality Disorder?

    Edit : ROFL I accidently posted this reply in the age old afterhours thread..LMAO - deleted it, but someone spotted it before then and replied -
    'It's a Jesus Thread...Jesus being an atheist :D
    minidazzler wrote: »
    Did someone actually just drag this thread up from the Dead!!!!


    It's a Jesus thread people!!!!!

    God 1 - Heathen bastards 0



  • #143
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    That 10^10^123 figure is used by creationists and most likely a load of crap btw


  • #144
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I just picked one, operating principle is that if I can debunk one anchor you should acknowledge that atheism is that little bit more acceptable :)
    Then we'll move onto others.

    No he really won't have to acknowledge anything. All of his "reasons" have been debunked by multiple people who all pointed out exactly the same flaws in his reasoning. He doesn't care that his "reasons for belief" are nonsense, all that matters is he's able to come up with reasons so he can claim his belief is rational


  • #145
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No he really won't have to acknowledge anything. All of his "reasons" have been debunked by multiple people who all pointed out exactly the same flaws in his reasoning. He doesn't care that his "reasons for belief" are nonsense, all that matters is he's able to come up with reasons so he can claim his belief is rational

    Why is it so important that the reasons for belief are rational? Why the constant effort to reconcile scientific knowledge with belief in a higher power? Why the inability to simply say "Look, I know it doesn't really make sense, I know I can't explain it, but I feel something and it makes me feel better about myself, about dying, about dealing with day to day life"?


  • #146
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Dades wrote: »
    You know you only have to click on Jakkass' sig to find his arguments for Christianity. He doesn't need to spell them out for you here again.

    Sorry, unaware of that function. Thanks.


  • #147
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why is it so important that the reasons for belief are rational? Why the constant effort to reconcile scientific knowledge with belief in a higher power? Why the inability to simply say "Look, I know it doesn't really make sense, I know I can't explain it, but I feel something and it makes me feel better about myself, about dying, about dealing with day to day life"?
    Because they think it makes them look stupid. In days gone by it was perfectly acceptable to simply say you believed, it would not be questioned or ridiculed. Now, as human knowledge increases the position of the believer begins to look more and more irrational. Each advance in knowledge makes another belief look that little bit more silly. So, they have to continually put forward reasons and ideas as to why their belief is actually rational.

    They have invested so much in this way of life they can’t afford to let it go. At least one of the regular posters from the other forum has stated that he would see no point in living were he to find out that god did not exist. Given this, a person would need to develop a method of rationalising that which is irrational.

    MrP


  • #148
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why is it so important that the reasons for belief are rational? Why the constant effort to reconcile scientific knowledge with belief in a higher power? Why the inability to simply say "Look, I know it doesn't really make sense, I know I can't explain it, but I feel something and it makes me feel better about myself, about dying, about dealing with day to day life"?

    That's enough for some believers but it's understandable why someone would like to think that their opinions are rational and not just wishful thinking. If I firmly believed that the world was created by the judeo-christian god then I'd expect to find evidence to back up this belief everywhere and if someone desperately wants to find something to back up their opinion they will find it. The people who firmly believe that the world is 10,000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist have a mountain of 'evidence' to back up their opinion. It's not valid evidence, it's all nonsense but that's not what's important. All that matters is they have something they can point to as a basis for their belief so when someone asks why they believe such nonsense instead of having nothing to say they can waffle on for hours and hope that no ones notices they have nothing to say


  • #149
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That 10^10^123 figure is used by creationists and most likely a load of crap btw

    I've had a look through a handful of the parameters Penrose used to calculate his probability (admittedly unfamiliar with this work before you mentioned it). It strikes me that he's basing his calculations on what might be necessary to create human life as it exists right now. If his paramenters are extended to allow a universe with ANY kind of life to exist, the probability increases with each small change to each parameter.

    It seems disingenuous to state (for example) "One tenth of a degree rise in temperature would mean life is not viable" when there are patently organisms in this universe that exist at a huge variety of temperatures. And if human metabolism was selected for to operate at 37.5 degrees instead of 37, is that a deviation from his calculations of "life as we know it"?

    It all sounds rather circular to me: life exists like this, because of these parameters, and therefore these parameters are necessary for life.


  • #150
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Personally, I don't care what you believe. If Religion provides some sort of stability to your life, a 'code' to live by, so to speak, then fine. You're free to worship whomever you desire.

    However, Religion, and all that it stands for, has far too much influence on society, and this is just unacceptable. When your unfounded beliefs have a say in how people live their lives, then something needs to be done.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    doctoremma wrote: »
    It all sounds rather circular to me: life exists like this, because of these parameters, and therefore these parameters are necessary for life.

    Yes it is. To quote myself from a previous post:

    An example of a really dodgy argument would be the whole thing that the universe is "fine tuned" for life. This is trumpeted as very strong evidence that it must have been designed. But people who make that argument are only thinking of this kind of life. Had the universe had different constants, it's entirely possible that a completely different kind of life would have eventually evolved. The universe appears to be fine tuned for this kind of life but if it was different, the glaxnors with the mercury running through their veins (assuming they have veins) would sit under their purple cuboidal sun in a universe where humans could never possibly evolve and remark how the universe seems so fine-tuned for them. The universe didn't adapt to life, life adapted to the universe.


Advertisement
Advertisement