Apologetics Thread!!!

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 03:09PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for my position - the so called straw man - you have done me a disservice by misrepresented it. I did not say that people will reject something like the resurrection without considering the evidence. I stated that people will reject it despite the evidence because they operate on the premise that miracles like bodily resurrection don't ever happen.

I swear I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Rejecting something despite the evidence because you "operate" on the premise that it isn't possible is the very definition of close mindedness

This is utterly ridiculous, you are shouting from the roof tops that you never implied anyone is close minded, and how dare I "create discord" by suggesting otherwise and then proceed to give a pretty damn perfect definition of close mindedness as what you actually saying.

It is pretty clear you are arguing simply for the sake of it. How can you sit there with a straight face complaining about rabbit holes when you come up with such argumentative nonsense. Its like debating Bill Clinton. Define "sex" :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock · 04-11-2009 03:39PM

Two things.

1) As, I believe, has been pointed out to you before, there is no such thing as Paulism. Similarly, we have been over the Old Testament/ New Testament God thing on a couple of occasions. I would have hoped that your misconceptions on the basics of Christianity would have been swept away after they were corrected. Even an effort made to acknowledge them would be appreciated.

If you are actually here to question Christian faith then it might be wise to listen to answers before going on again about Paulism, South Korean Christians or whatever else. Otherwise you are only chasing your tail and, by doing so, impoverishing the debate.

2) It really doesn't matter if you find the evidence for or against God to be ridiculous. Your personal opinion doesn't invalidate the evidence in the minds of other people. Besides, I made it perfectly clear that your opinion wasn't part of the homework set.

P.S. You should actually read what I said.

The example I gave of "The problem of evil" is just that - it's a philosophical argument advanced as a (not insurmountable, IMO) barrier to the idea of an all powerful and/ or an all loving God and the existence of evil in the world.

Fanny Cradock · 04-11-2009 03:59PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I swear I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Rejecting something despite the evidence because you "operate" on the premise that it isn't possible is the very definition of close mindedness

This is utterly ridiculous, you are shouting from the roof tops that you never implied anyone is close minded, and how dare I "create discord" by suggesting otherwise and then proceed to give a pretty damn perfect definition of close mindedness as what you actually saying.

It is pretty clear you are arguing simply for the sake of it. How can you sit there with a straight face complaining about rabbit holes when you come up with such argumentative nonsense. Its like debating Bill Clinton. Define "sex" :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, Wicknight, I don't actually enjoy arguing with you, nor am I arguing for the sake of it. I rarely enter debates with your good self because any discussion normally end up in pages of pointless verbiage.

Please read my first post again. Read it carefully, especially the last line. There you will see that I never specified atheists or, dare I say, you. I said some people will reject the resurrection whatever the evidence. If a person was of the opinion that divine resurrection doesn't ever happen, then there is always a better naturalistic option - be it aliens or whatever. However, I'm sure that if sufficient evidence was presented to non resurrection believers then it would become a possibility, at least for some.

Mercy! Either way I couldn't be bothered discussing it further. If you are intent on arguing that I'm saying that not believing in things like the resurrection of Jesus makes one closed minded then that is just fine. OK! You win. You are closed minded for not believing in the resurrection of Jesus! Obviously my rejection of reincarnation, atheism and any number of takes on reality makes me closed minded, too. So we are all closed minded. Happy?

Maybe it's a simple miscommunication, or possibly it's yet another thing we can add to the "list of things we don't agree on". But maybe we can agree to disagree on this one and put this disagreeable business behind us.

PDN · 04-11-2009 04:16PM

monosharp wrote: »

And what grounds are those exactly ?

I don't think believing in the existence of the supernatural is logical.

How else am I deciding not to be a theist ?

I've come across many different reasons why atheists have reached their position. Last time I posted some of them in a thread I was accused of all kinds of bigotry, generalisation and other assorted claptrap.

One common reason I have encountered for people choosing to be atheists is because they were taught to be atheists in the home and in school. They accepted the environment in which they were raised and never questioned it.

Others choose atheism because they want to behave in certain ways and Christianity would be a hindrance to that lifestyle.

Others think it's cool and makes them look smart.

There are all kinds of reasons why people make the choices that they do. The more honest among us will usually admit that. Others like to pretend that they make all their choices by logic alone and, therefore, that those who disagree with them are illogical and irrational. That view, while obviously comforting and ego-stroking, is hardly objective.

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 05:13PM

In fairness to PDN Monosharp he isn't saying that all atheists, and thus you as well, made your decision to be an atheist on non-logical reasons, he is simply stating that some atheists do, which I'm we can both agree is true (A. N Wilson in the other thread would be an example of an atheist who had quite non-logical reasons for being an atheist and quite non-logical reasons for going back to Christianity)

It is perfectly possible to base atheism simply on logical rationalism (in fact it is hard to imagine any other conclusion if you stick to this completely) but that certainly doesn't mean every atheist does this.

Patrickof · 04-11-2009 05:23PM

PDN wrote: »

I've come across many different reasons why atheists have reached their position. Last time I posted some of them in a thread I was accused of all kinds of bigotry, generalisation and other assorted claptrap.

One common reason I have encountered for people choosing to be atheists is because they were taught to be atheists in the home and in school. They accepted the environment in which they were raised and never questioned it.

Others choose atheism because they want to behave in certain ways and Christianity would be a hindrance to that lifestyle.

Others think it's cool and makes them look smart.

There are all kinds of reasons why people make the choices that they do. The more honest among us will usually admit that. Others like to pretend that they make all their choices by logic alone and, therefore, that those who disagree with them are illogical and irrational. That view, while obviously comforting and ego-stroking, is hardly objective.

Surely the exact opposite is the case. You seem to be taking the view that "atheists have reached their position" which implies that you consider them to have moved from the default position, Christianity, to this new position for one of the reasons you list (none of which are put in a good light by yourself I might add).

I suggest its the other way around, we are all born atheist, infact we're born pretty much ignorant of most things in the world (except pooing, peeing and sucking!). The list you gave above frames quite nicely how anyone moves into pretty much any religion. Athiests just stay where they are in terms of religion, though some go via a christian (in Ireland mostly) family then revert to Atheism when they grow older.

I haven't chosen to be atheist, more specifically I have decided that there's nothing to believe in (in religious terms).

Morbert · 04-11-2009 05:52PM

I should probably throw in a few words about atheism and logic. Atheists don't (or at least shouldn't) use logic to show that atheism is true. Instead, they use logic to show that it is a consistent framework that fits experiences and observations. Logic and science are used by atheists to defend themselves against attacks from hasty philosophers and would-be scientists who claim that atheism is a self defeating worldview that contradicts evidence.

This is why "agnostic" is tagged onto atheism. Atheists are agnostic about what is absolutely true, but accept atheism as a belief that is consistent with their experiences.

As for myself. I was a "casual theist" until I moved to Ireland, where I was exposed to Christianity much more. It never really grabbed me, despite its promises, which is why I ended up as an atheist.

PDN · 04-11-2009 06:12PM

Morbert wrote: »

I should probably throw in a few words about atheism and logic. Atheists don't (or at least shouldn't) use logic to show that atheism is true. Instead, they use logic to show that it is a consistent framework that fits experiences and observations. Logic and science are used by atheists to defend themselves against attacks from hasty philosophers and would-be scientists who claim that atheism is a self defeating worldview that contradicts evidence.

Ah, now that is actually what I am saying. Both Christianity and atheism appear to be able to stand as self-contained belief systems. If you allow each one their starting presuppositions then they are both fairly consistent and coherent. Neither would have prospered to the extent that they have if they were as contradictory or as inconsistent as their critics claim.

They each use a form of apologetics which is really just 'preaching to the choir' and the zealots on both sides seem genuinely baffled that what appears so convincing to themselves makes little or no headway in converting the other side.

Both atheism and Christianity can be supported by logical argument once you have taken the necessary step of faith to accept their initial presuppositions - but I don't think you can take that initial step by logic alone.

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 06:17PM

PDN wrote: »

Ah, now that is actually what I am saying. Both Christianity and atheism appear to be able to stand as self-contained belief systems. If you allow each one their starting presuppositions then they are both fairly consistent and coherent. Neither would have prospered to the extent that they have if they were as contradictory or as inconsistent as their critics claim.

They each use a form of apologetics which is really just 'preaching to the choir' and the zealots on both sides seem genuinely baffled that what appears so convincing to themselves makes little or no headway in converting the other side.

Both atheism and Christianity can be supported by logical argument once you have taken the necessary step of faith to accept their initial presuppositions - but I don't think you can take that initial step by logic alone.

What do you believe the initial step of atheism is?

I would imagine you will probably say that it that gods do not exist. Which isn't the case for a lot if not most of the atheists I know.

My initial step to atheism was "Humans believe stuff that isn't true", which I think can certainly be reached by an initial step of rationality (logic is perhaps the wrong word) alone since it is trivial to demonstrate

PDN · 04-11-2009 06:22PM

Patrickof wrote: »

Surely the exact opposite is the case. You seem to be taking the view that "atheists have reached their position" which implies that you consider them to have moved from the default position, Christianity, to this new position for one of the reasons you list (none of which are put in a good light by yourself I might add).

I suggest its the other way around, we are all born atheist, infact we're born pretty much ignorant of most things in the world (except pooing, peeing and sucking!). The list you gave above frames quite nicely how anyone moves into pretty much any religion. Athiests just stay where they are in terms of religion, though some go via a christian (in Ireland mostly) family then revert to Atheism when they grow older.

I haven't chosen to be atheist, more specifically I have decided that there's nothing to believe in (in religious terms).

Firstly, I never implied that Christianity is the default position.

If you want to define atheist as meaning 'not even considering whether a God exists or not' then, yes, we are all born as atheists. We are also born with no belief in the holocaust.

If you decide that there probably is a God, or that the holocaust did indeed occur, then you have to move to that belief from the default position.

If you decide that God probably does not exist, or you decide to be a holocaust denier, then you also have moved from the default position where you never considered such things.

So, if the A&A forum is to be considered as a place for those for whom the thought of God has never crossed their minds, then I will agree that is a default position that requires no initial decision. However, if we use 'atheist' to refer to someone who has rejected the concept of God then it is more accurate to say that both Christianity and atheism are a departure from the default.

PDN · 04-11-2009 06:29PM

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you believe the initial step of atheism is?

I would imagine you will probably say that it that gods do not exist. Which isn't the case for a lot if not most of the atheists I know.

My initial step to atheism was "Humans believe stuff that isn't true", which I think can certainly be reached by an initial step of rationality (logic is perhaps the wrong word) alone since it is trivial to demonstrate

I see another rabbit trail looming.

I could argue that my initial step to Christianity was also "Humans believe stuff that isn't true." One of those things turned out to be the atheism within which I had been raised.

I think we probably both made some leaps of logic to reach our present positions, and then used logic after the event to fill in the gaps and to rationalise to ourselves why we did what we wanted to do. That's how human nature works.

Unfortunately, going by past experience, that balanced and sensible suggestion will provoke those atheists who want to insist that they are the only rational people and that everyone else is deluded. And in the end we will end up going nowhere because there's not much point in arguing with fundamentalist zealots who are convinced of the rightness of their cause.

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 06:35PM

Yeah I sort of agree with PDN on this one (:eek:)

The atheism is the default position (which I admit I held to for a long time) has a few flaws, one being what PDN just pointed out that once you have been exposed to a theistic religion you are still picking a position of either rejecting or accepting what you have been told, you can't go back to a position of "Never heard of it".

Also, and in my view more troubling for the idea of atheism as a default position, is that humans aren't born atheists. We are born with a natural instinct to see agency in nature (which explains religion in the first place in my view) and left to our own devices will come up with our own "gods" to explain things that happen around us in human like context, which we seem to have evolved to do.

So it take more of an intellectual reasoning process to be an atheist that the atheism is default idea would initially suggest. If we were never exposed to theism we would probably still end up theists and it is perhaps a requirement to be an atheist that you are exposed to theism since you need some frame of reference to conclude that what you instinctively feel is wrong, or explained by evolution not there actually being spirits in the rain clouds.

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 06:43PM

PDN wrote: »

I think we probably both made some leaps of logic to reach our present positions, and then used logic after the event to fill in the gaps and to rationalise to ourselves why we did what we wanted to do. That's how human nature works.

Possibly, but that wasn't what I asked you.

You are apparently claiming that the initial step of atheism is an faith based assumption. It would possibly help if you explained what you actually think the initial set of atheism is.

If the initial step of your Christianity was that people believe things that aren't true then I wouldn't consider your Christianity based on a faith based assumption any more than my atheism.

PDN · 04-11-2009 06:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You are apparently claiming that the initial step of atheism is an faith based assumption. It would possibly help if you explained what you actually think the initial set of atheism is.

I think it varies from person to person, as indeed does the initial step to Christianity.

One example of such an assumption would be the idea that something is impossible (or so improbable as to amount to the same thing) unless our current scientific understanding can account for it.

Zombrex · 04-11-2009 07:04PM

PDN wrote: »

I think it varies from person to person, as indeed does the initial step to Christianity.

One example of such an assumption would be the idea that something is impossible (or so improbable as to amount to the same thing) unless our current scientific understanding can account for it.

I would of course slap that person for being stupid, the whole point of science is that it can't account for things that still happen, that it then seeks to explain. :pac:

I suppose what I'm getting at is that you can't really say that the basis for atheism is a faith based assumption. It might be, certainly, but not always.

But in fairness to you you said this is what you think, rather than asserting it as a fact, so I'm not going to push it, particularly if you see it as an off topic rabbit hole. You might get a better idea of the way atheists start the initial reasoning on the A&A forum if you are interested.

Turtwig · 04-11-2009 07:05PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Also, and in my view more troubling for the idea of atheism as a default position, is that humans aren't born atheists. We are born with a natural instinct to see agency in nature (which explains religion in the first place in my view) and left to our own devices will come up with our own "gods" to explain things that happen around us in human like context, which we seem to have evolved to do.

I don't find that troubling at all.
As humans we like to associate a narrative with an object or person. Religion is merely our imagination let run loose. Eventually though that led us to more elaborate and better stories which, eventually, led to more useful methods of enquiries that finally led us to seek the truth.

Ignosticism/Atheism/Pearlism etc, as I see it, are the searching for the story of truth.:)

Sam Vimes · 04-11-2009 10:39PM

PDN wrote: »

I think it varies from person to person, as indeed does the initial step to Christianity.

One example of such an assumption would be the idea that something is impossible (or so improbable as to amount to the same thing) unless our current scientific understanding can account for it.

I think you've got the wrong presupposition for atheism there. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the supernatural, I don't know everything about the universe so it might exist but even if I completely accept it, I am still left with millions upon millions upon millions of mutually exclusive supernatural claims to sift through and without independent verifiable evidence there is no way to rationally determine which ones, if any, are true and you become an atheist by default

I could be wrong but I think this is an example of something I've seen a bit from believers, that the main question they wrestled with is "does god exist or not" and the question of Yahweh versus Allah versus Zeus versus Wotan versus the great Ju Ju under the sea never really figured very much

PDN · 04-11-2009 10:54PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you've got the wrong presupposition for atheism there.

I did say it was one example.

I could be wrong but I think this is an example of something I've seen a bit from believers, that the main question they wrestled with is "does god exist or not" and the question of Yahweh versus Allah versus Zeus versus Wotan versus the great Ju Ju under the sea never really figured very much

Certainly not in my case, nor from what I hear from most believers of an evangelical persuasion.

For many of us the key issue was a moral one concerning our own sinfulness. I'm not talking about a fear of hell, I'm talking about a profound dissatisfaction with our own moral progress. Our interaction with Christians demonstrated that they had become significantly better people as a result of their faith. Our interaction with atheists, Muslims etc did not demonstrate this (that is not to say that they were bad people, but rather that their ideology did not make them better people than they had been previously).

It wouldn't really matter if Zeus, Wotan or Ju Ju under the sea were real - because their existence or non-existence would make no difference to our lives. It would be like discovering that one ocean was deeper than another - interesting, but of no relevance to my marriage or to my struggles at work.

That is why I see most apologetics (both Christian and atheist) as ultimately futile except for confirming the views of those who are already decided - it is trying to answer the wrong question. Most people are asking whether faith works, not whether God exists. Once God has turned your life around then it seems pretty pointless wrestling with the question of whether He exists or not.

Fanny Cradock · 04-11-2009 11:19PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you've got the wrong presupposition for atheism there. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the supernatural, I don't know everything about the universe so it might exist but even if I completely accept it, I am still left with millions upon millions upon millions of mutually exclusive supernatural claims to sift through and without independent verifiable evidence there is no way to rationally determine which ones, if any, are true and you become an atheist by default

Well that's a start!

I would think that you initially only have to concern yourself with the one claim - whether there is or isn't a God or Gods. If you decide for whatever reasons (hopefully some decent ones) that it is highly unlikely - bordering on impossible - then you go. However, if you decide that such a Being may exist it warrants further investigation, and then the fun starts, and you can begin to work up a theological and philosophical sweat.

I'm afraid that I just don't see the logic in saying that because there are millions of claims (and how many of these millions of claims are actually all that central to belief, I wonder?) one can't possibly determine the accuracy of any religious claims or answer the big metaphysical questions. For this, though, it seems to me that one would have to consider that knowledge doesn't begin and end with the principal of scientism.

Fanny Cradock · 04-11-2009 11:31PM

PDN wrote: »

I did say it was one example.

Certainly not in my case, nor from what I hear from most believers of an evangelical persuasion.

For many of us the key issue was a moral one concerning our own sinfulness. I'm not talking about a fear of hell, I'm talking about a profound dissatisfaction with our own moral progress. Our interaction with Christians demonstrated that they had become significantly better people as a result of their faith. Our interaction with atheists, Muslims etc did not demonstrate this (that is not to say that they were bad people, but rather that their ideology did not make them better people than they had been previously).

It wouldn't really matter if Zeus, Wotan or Ju Ju under the sea were real - because their existence or non-existence would make no difference to our lives. It would be like discovering that one ocean was deeper than another - interesting, but of no relevance to my marriage or to my struggles at work.

That is why I see most apologetics (both Christian and atheist) as ultimately futile except for confirming the views of those who are already decided - it is trying to answer the wrong question. Most people are asking whether faith works, not whether God exists. Once God has turned your life around then it seems pretty pointless wrestling with the question of whether He exists or not.

Interesting! Apologetics certainly played a major role in my return to faith - at least in tweaking my interest and finding that there were some satisfying answers to long troubling questions.

I guess that the stock rebuttal to your post would be that faith working in someone's life is just some sort of group think in action or a placebo without the pill or some such. Something that isn't unique to Christianity. Therefore...

Is there any reply to such a perspective?

In attempting to answer my own question, I'm reminded of the quote attributed to St Francis of Assisi - "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words". I guess you will win some people over eventually.

Zombrex · 05-11-2009 12:28AM

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't find that troubling at all.

I don't mean personally troubling, I mean troubling for the idea that we are born atheists, in that it strongly contradicts such a position.

We have a strong in build need to embrace concepts like agency in nature. I don't personally find that troubling because it explains why so many people are religious, though I do find it troubling in that when you are arguing against religious belief you often come up against the brick wall of "common sense"

Zombrex · 05-11-2009 12:41AM

PDN wrote: »

That is why I see most apologetics (both Christian and atheist) as ultimately futile except for confirming the views of those who are already decided - it is trying to answer the wrong question. Most people are asking whether faith works, not whether God exists. Once God has turned your life around then it seems pretty pointless wrestling with the question of whether He exists or not.

I can see where you are coming from but I have to disagree with that.

I've been reading a lot of about the anti-vaccine movement in America lately and it is quite worrying (it is sort of the secular Creationism, "common sense" trumping science and reason).

I really think people have to examine not only is what I believe comforting or makes sense to me but also is it true or can I justify that it is true. And if I can't justify it is true beyond it makes sense to me why do I believe it.

Our western culture is becoming more and more accepting of this notion that everyone finds their own truth, that truth is relative and democratic. Religion is really just one part of this. That is fine in matter of the philosophical but not of matters of the physical, which religion falls into, where truth is not a democracy.

Before anyone jumps down my throat I'm not linking the anti-vaccine movement to Christianity, nor suggesting that supernaturalism alone is killing children (the anti-vaccine movement appears largely secular and materialistic in nature).

Turtwig · 05-11-2009 12:46AM

Wicknight wrote: »

you often come up against the brick wall of "common sense"

It's just a barrier wicky, people had trouble coping with negative numbers once.
Eventually though the barrier is bridged as our technology and knowledge advances common sense of people will change too.
Ask yourself, is there anything today that you can easily understand and visualise that your recent ancestors could not?
I mean, I know kids today that find it easier to accept relativity than I do and amazingly they can visualise it accurately!!

In my view, the biggest barrier to common sense is television, once that begins to change perceptions will change alot faster.
I mean todays video games, GTA IV for example, obey better principles of reality than television does when it comes to laws of nature -try exploding a petrol tank of a car in GTA IV;).

Edit : The anti vaccine movement scares me more than creationism : the former costs people lives!

Wicky it's not secular by any means.

Zombrex · 05-11-2009 12:57AM

Malty_T wrote: »

It's just a barrier wicky, people had trouble coping with negative numbers once.

I'm not sure about that, people seem to hold on to views that they believe make common sense despite strong evidence to the contrary (the anti-vaccine movement is a example). I don't think it is a generational thing.

I think society is encouraging this more and more as well, which allows movements like Creationism and the anti-vaccine movement (which is not religious as far as I know, not sure what you meant by it is not secular) an almost free rain in the wider public sphere.

Getting back OT I think religion facilitates this sort of thing by putting forward the idea that all ideas are basically as subjective as the next which leads to the notion of a democracy of physical truth. I can believe in God and ghosts and that vaccines cause autism and you can't say I'm wrong because your ideas are just as subjective and assumptive as mine. We throw out the standards in order to allow everyone to feel good about their own particular beliefs.

Sam Vimes · 05-11-2009 01:07AM

PDN wrote: »

For many of us the key issue was a moral one concerning our own sinfulness. I'm not talking about a fear of hell, I'm talking about a profound dissatisfaction with our own moral progress. Our interaction with Christians demonstrated that they had become significantly better people as a result of their faith. Our interaction with atheists, Muslims etc did not demonstrate this (that is not to say that they were bad people, but rather that their ideology did not make them better people than they had been previously).

It wouldn't really matter if Zeus, Wotan or Ju Ju under the sea were real - because their existence or non-existence would make no difference to our lives. It would be like discovering that one ocean was deeper than another - interesting, but of no relevance to my marriage or to my struggles at work.

That is why I see most apologetics (both Christian and atheist) as ultimately futile except for confirming the views of those who are already decided - it is trying to answer the wrong question. Most people are asking whether faith works, not whether God exists. Once God has turned your life around then it seems pretty pointless wrestling with the question of whether He exists or not.

That is very very odd to me. As I've been saying for a while now about believers, you've picked a faith because of what it offers you. Whether it's true or not almost seems irrelevant because you think your life is better if you believe it. I can kind of see why you think talking to atheists is pointless now

But honestly, contrary to something you said earlier, thinking like that plays absolutely no part in me being an atheist and I think it's safe to say the same of all the regulars over on A&A. I'm not an atheist because it suits me, I'm really not. That thinking hurts my head :P

Turtwig · 05-11-2009 01:16AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, people seem to hold on to views that they believe make common sense despite strong evidence to the contrary (the anti-vaccine movement is a example). I don't think it is a generational thing.

The anti vaccine movement is based on fear and that's what illicits a primitive irrational response from us. No one wants to take unnecessary risks. With vaccines there is this image of them being a risky infection because people have a poor grasp of statistics.
In time the gap of understanding statistics will have to increase (especially if Quantum Physics is to be taught in first and second level education, which you should admit will eventually happen

).
It's both religious and non religious. Glenn Beck and Bill Maher are two people that immediately spring to mind. Gotta say from my experience I think it's religious more than atheist (mainly because atheism is a minority).Proportion wise most athesist/agnostic are rational skeptics and most skeptics are pro vaccine. However that's still a vague qualifier. Going out a limb, I'd say it's still the religious side.

I think society is encouraging this more and more as well, which allows movements like Creationism and the anti-vaccine movement (which is not religious as far as I know, not sure what you meant by it is not secular) an almost free rain in the wider public sphere.

No doubt about this at all. Sad but true, democracy may be flawed but it's still a work in progress. Creationism/ID, and lot's of other sh1t have grown simply because we allow them to and many people couldn't be arsed getting engaged with it and stamping it out:(.
Science's biggest failing is that we do not communicate with the public instead the public use their common sense to interpret our results the sacking of the guy in britain for example is a big worry because the facts are alcohol does more damage than some forms of recreational drugs and were we to control its fabrication the drug may indeed be safer than alcohol.:eek:
Politics cannot accept that idea so ...

Getting back OT I think religion facilitates this sort of thing by putting forward the idea that all ideas are basically as subjective as the next which leads to the notion of a democracy of physical truth. I can believe in God and ghosts and that vaccines cause autism and you can't say I'm wrong because your ideas are just as subjective and assumptive as mine. We throw out the standards in order to allow everyone to feel good about their own particular beliefs.

And you're bang on religion does indeed facilitate this sort of thing.:mad:

Sam Vimes · 05-11-2009 02:22AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well that's a start!

I would think that you initially only have to concern yourself with the one claim - whether there is or isn't a God or Gods. If you decide for whatever reasons (hopefully some decent ones) that it is highly unlikely - bordering on impossible - then you go. However, if you decide that such a Being may exist it warrants further investigation, and then the fun starts, and you can begin to work up a theological and philosophical sweat.

I'm afraid that I just don't see the logic in saying that because there are millions of claims (and how many of these millions of claims are actually all that central to belief, I wonder?) one can't possibly determine the accuracy of any religious claims or answer the big metaphysical questions. For this, though, it seems to me that one would have to consider that knowledge doesn't begin and end with the principal of scientism.

As odd as I find PDN's reasoning, I find yours odder. When there are thousands of religions and millions of supernatural claims out there, none of which have independently verifiable evidence, of course I'd have trouble determining which ones are true

No matter what way you look at it the vast majority of supernatural claims in the world are false and when I have multiple religions all telling me I'll be punished if I don't accept them, I want to be pretty damn sure before I commit to one

I think this again comes back to the motivations for belief. It looks to me like you picked the religion that most closely matched your own world view, the one that made the most sense to you and the one that you perceived as making your life better. Would that be accurate?

Of course to (most) atheists, none of that makes a blind bit of difference because making your life better and having a good moral code doesn't make a religion true

The thing is though, I'd follow the teachings of Jesus for the most part too, he was a brilliant moral philosopher. I borrow bits of wisdom from loads of religions and ideologies to use in my daily life and engage in community activities etc but unlike believers I'm free to pick the bits I like and ignore others without being branded a hypocrite or a cafeteria catholic and without feeling the need to justify things like the old testament, which Terry Pratchett (I think) describes as "before god found religion" :P
You don't need to believe that a man walked on water and raised from the dead to be able to live your life exactly as you do today and when you come to the conclusion that all of that wonderful morality in the bible and other holy books and the altruism and amazing compassion people can show each other are entirely natural and aren't dependent on the grace of an invisible being it gives you a hell of a lot more faith in humanity. People don't need the metaphysical carrot and stick to be good people.

I wish more believers would be as straightforward as this tbh. If someone tells me that they choose to believe because they think it makes their lives better then there's not really a whole lot I can say to that. It's pretty much confirming what I've always thought, that people believe because they want to believe. It's simply not in my nature to do that, I am incapable of "choosing" to believe something, it's either convincing or it's not. The problems begin when they start getting into arguments to try to justify their beliefs rationally because the only people who will ever find any of those arguments convincing are those who are already convinced, the people who have already decided that a religion is true for emotional reasons and is looking for something to back it up. The arguments are not objectively convincing, especially the ontological argument which makes my head hurt.

So on the one hand we have people who believe something for emotional reasons such as they think it makes their lives better and on the other we have people who cannot bring themselves to accept something like this as true until it can be proven, even if believing it would make them happier. The believers give all their logical arguments but these arguments are not actually the reason they believe, they're secondary and used to justify a belief already held. They're only convincing to the already convinced. Meanwhile the atheists give all their logical arguments and rebuttals but we're only rebutting the secondary arguments and not addressing the actual reason they believe, because they think it makes their lives better.

So we go around and around and around until we all get pissed off with each other

I'm really starting to see the futility of it all. The only argument I can think of that actually addresses the central issue is the one I just raised, that you don't need to believe Jesus was God to follow his teachings and live your life as you do and in my opinion it gives you more freedom because if there's something you're avoiding now because it's unchristian, you can just ask yourself if doing it would hurt others and go for it if it doesn't.

Go on, you know you want a bit of pre-marital

monosharp · 05-11-2009 03:56AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two things.

1) As, I believe, has been pointed out to you before, there is no such thing as Paulism. Similarly, we have been over the Old Testament/ New Testament God thing on a couple of occasions. I would have hoped that your misconceptions on the basics of Christianity would have been swept away after they were corrected. Even an effort made to acknowledge them would be appreciated.

Christianity is all about belief, no one gave me enough evidence to prove one way or the other.

2) It really doesn't matter if you find the evidence for or against God to be ridiculous. Your personal opinion doesn't invalidate the evidence in the minds of other people. Besides, I made it perfectly clear that your opinion wasn't part of the homework set.

What you call 'evidence' for god or even gods could be 'evidence' for just about anything. Its ridiculous to claim that something natural with a natural explanation is the result of something supernatural.

The example I gave of "The problem of evil" is just that - it's a philosophical argument advanced as a (not insurmountable, IMO) barrier to the idea of an all powerful and/ or an all loving God and the existence of evil in the world.

So the evidence you have for god is that there is evil ?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds ? I'd imagine that same comment would be equally ridiculous to most religious people.

Either you have an extremely odd definition of what 'evidence' is or your desperately grasping at straws.

monosharp · 05-11-2009 03:59AM

PDN wrote: »

I've come across many different reasons why atheists have reached their position. Last time I posted some of them in a thread I was accused of all kinds of bigotry, generalisation and other assorted claptrap.

One common reason I have encountered for people choosing to be atheists is because they were taught to be atheists in the home and in school. They accepted the environment in which they were raised and never questioned it.

Others choose atheism because they want to behave in certain ways and Christianity would be a hindrance to that lifestyle.

Others think it's cool and makes them look smart.

Oh I wonder why you were accused of bigotry :rolleyes:

There are all kinds of reasons why people make the choices that they do.

Atheism is the default position to which we are all born into. Christianity is the choice.

Fanny Cradock · 05-11-2009 04:47AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As odd as I find PDN's reasoning, I find yours odder. When there are thousands of religions and millions of supernatural claims out there, none of which have independently verifiable evidence, of course I'd have trouble determining which ones are true

Odder, eh? Oh well!

You have a mind, don't you? The whole point is that if you accept that there might be a God, it then follows that you test the waters of the truth claims about that Being(s). But if you are unwilling to do so because you believe that materialism, naturalism or whatever is the only way there is, then I suggest there is little point in complaining that it's impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it the vast majority of supernatural claims in the world are false and when I have multiple religions all telling me I'll be punished if I don't accept them, I want to be pretty damn sure before I commit to one

I think you're jumping the gun a bit, no? Again, what's the point in stacking up obstacles when you haven't even gotten over the whole "there is no God" thing.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think this again comes back to the motivations for belief. It looks to me like you picked the religion that most closely matched your own world view, the one that made the most sense to you and the one that you perceived as making your life better. Would that be accurate?

Humm... I'm not sure what the point of answering your question would be. You have made an assumption on my motives for being a Christian while also using these motives to rule out the possibility that Christianity (in the broadest sense) might be true despite them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

course to (most) atheists, none of that makes a blind bit of difference because making your life better and having a good moral code doesn't make a religion true

Yes, I've already pointed this out. (See my previous post). Was anyone suggesting otherwise

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is though, I'd follow the teachings of Jesus for the most part too, he was a brilliant moral philosopher. I borrow bits of wisdom from loads of religions and ideologies to use in my daily life and engage in community activities etc but unlike believers I'm free to pick the bits I like and ignore others without being branded a hypocrite or a cafeteria catholic and without feeling the need to justify things like the old testament, which Terry Pratchett (I think) describes as "before god found religion" :P

Well done you! If you are "giving something back" then I'm not going to complain.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You don't need to believe that a man walked on water and raised from the dead to be able to live your life exactly as you do today and when you come to the conclusion that all of that wonderful morality in the bible and other holy books and the altruism and amazing compassion people can show each other are entirely natural and aren't dependent on the grace of an invisible being it gives you a hell of a lot more faith in humanity. People don't need the metaphysical carrot and stick to be good people.

What are you talking about

Maybe I've missed a post or two, but did anyone state otherwise? More power to you if you are a good bloke, and while I'm not entirely pessimistic about our species, I'm happy if you have "faith in humanity". Though I don't pretend to understand what that means, especially in the light of the last century.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wish more believers would be as straightforward as this tbh. If someone tells me that they choose to believe because they think it makes their lives better then there's not really a whole lot I can say to that. It's pretty much confirming what I've always thought, that people believe because they want to believe. It's simply not in my nature to do that, I am incapable of "choosing" to believe something, it's either convincing or it's not. The problems begin when they start getting into arguments to try to justify their beliefs rationally because the only people who will ever find any of those arguments convincing are those who are already convinced, the people who have already decided that a religion is true for emotional reasons and is looking for something to back it up.

Straightforward as what? Do you mean "I wish believers would agree with what I've just said because it will confirm what I've always thought?". I believe in Jesus and his resurrection for a number of reasons, not just because it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. You criticise religious people for entering with the preconception that there is a God, and thus attempt to devalue any arguments for his existence. Well, it cuts both ways, Sam. You are hardly free of preconceptions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So on the one hand we have people who believe something for emotional reasons such as they think it makes their lives better and on the other we have people who cannot bring themselves to accept something like this as true until it can be proven, even if believing it would make them happier. The believers give all their logical arguments but these arguments are not actually the reason they believe, they're secondary and used to justify a belief already held. They're only convincing to the already convinced. Meanwhile the atheists give all their logical arguments and rebuttals but we're only rebutting the secondary arguments and not addressing the actual reason they believe, because they think it makes their lives better.

Nonsense. I was not a convinced Christian - I had little clue about what I believed - and the intellectual arguments for God certainly helped me. Don Carson tells of a small number of people he knows who were primarily motivated to faith by logical argument.

You are needlessly reducing belief in God to an emotional motivation - the word "crutch" springs to mind - and then pit this pejorative parody of belief against the apparent logical motivations for non-belief. By implication it seems that you are implying that atheists are people who have necessarily ruled out emotion from their decision making process?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm really starting to see the futility of it all. The only argument I can think of that actually addresses the central issue is the one I just raised, that you don't need to believe Jesus was God to follow his teachings and live your life as you do and in my opinion it gives you more freedom because if there's something you're avoiding now because it's unchristian, you can just ask yourself if doing it would hurt others and go for it if it doesn't.

Again, I wonder where this stuff is coming from. No one has said you can't follow Jesus' teachings if you don't believe the whole God thing. Of course, I would wonder why you wouldn't just find some guru who has extensive teachings and is primarily concerned with being a good egg in this reality. But feel free to follow whoever you wish.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments