Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why I secretly root for Atheists in Debates

245

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Without investing too much time in the whys and wherefores, surely there's a rather large hole in Craig's argument:
    Craig: But secondly, the problem that’s even worse is the “ought implies can” problem. In the absence of the ability to do otherwise, there is no moral responsibility. In the absence of freedom of the will, we are just puppets or electro-chemical machines. And puppets do not have moral responsibilities. Machines are not moral agents. But on Dr. Harris’s view, there is no freedom of the will, either in a libertarian or a compatibilistic sense, and therefore, there is no moral responsibility. So there isn’t even the possibility of moral duty on his view. So while I can affirm and applaud Dr. Harris’s affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and moral duties, at the end of the day his philosophical worldview just doesn’t ground these entities that we both want to affirm. If God exists, then we clearly have a sound foundation for objective moral values and moral duties. But if God does not exist, that is, if atheism is true, then there is no basis for the affirmation of objective moral values; and there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver and there is no freedom of the will. And therefore it seems to me that atheism is simply bereft of the adequate ontological foundations to establish the moral life.
    ...and yet atheists can agree objective moral values, along the lines of 'don't harm others', 'don't steal', 'don't kill' and so forth. How are these values less objective than - say - the ten commandments?

    Craig's position is effectively that of a man explaining why heavier than air vehicles will never fly, even as the Red Arrows are whizzing around over his head. 'Sure, it may work in practice - but it doesn't work in theory'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Ok so let me ask you a question. What do you think of ''Faith''?

    Beyond it's something I haven't ever had - not a lot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Ok so let me ask you a question. What do you think of ''Faith''?

    I'm a fan of George Michaels version, but Limp Bizkits 1998 cover was fantastic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I've known people with it. Sometimes it brought them great peace and comfort. Which is nice.
    Other times their fear of displeasing this God they had 'faith' is caused them torment.
    Which is not nice.

    Wouldn't want it myself. Seems like a bit of a roller coaster of conflicting beliefs and emotions tbh.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Ok so let me ask you a question. What do you think of ''Faith''?
    Code word for the suspension of logic and sense in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and other failures of logic and sense that religion inevitably leads you to.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Code word for the suspension of logic and sense in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and other failures of logic and sense that religion inevitably leads you to.
    Indeed. "I know it doesn't make sense, but I really, really want it to be true".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Saw this title from an Article of a Catholic Christian and thought it was odd, so I read it and thought it was a very good article and was wondering ( after you have read all of it ) what your thoughts are?

    Why I secretly root for atheists in debates

    Interesting take on things there Onesimus.

    This line struck a chord, though is not exclusive to atheism:

    The New Atheists are plainly accustomed to standing up in front of large groups of college students, making snide put-downs that get a lot of laughs and applause

    Knowing that one has an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue. I think sometimes the temptation to 'thanks whore' as its called on forums, is too great for some.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Indeed. "I know it doesn't make sense, but I really, really want it to be true".

    Or to paraphrase Kierkegaard: "It has to not make sense, otherwise there would be no need for faith."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Knowing that one has an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue. I think sometimes the temptation to 'thanks whore' as its called on forums, is too great for some.

    Is that why you were being obtuse, dishonest, snide and insulting over on the other forum about same-sex couples?

    And how did it feel to get so few thanks on your home turf, as it were? Did it feel good?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sarky wrote: »
    Is that why you were being obtuse, dishonest, snide and insulting over on the other forum about same-sex couples?

    You are more than welcome to prove all of those baseless accusations on the thread in question. though there is a distinct irony that you would say those things in this thread :)
    And how did it feel to get so few thanks on your home turf, as it were? Did it feel good?

    It didn't feel anything tbh. Why on earth would it matter?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Saw this title from an Article of a Catholic Christian and thought it was odd, so I read it and thought it was a very good article [...]
    Let me look at the first paragraph:

    First line: Plug for own book including link to buy - check!
    Second line: Inflate reputation by dropping hint that self is so important that self is invited to partake in university-level debates in different countries - check!
    Third line: Inflate reputation by dropping that self appears on the radio - check!
    Fourth line: Inflate reputation by noting confidence levels - check!
    Fifth line: Sneer at atheists - check!
    Sixth line: Bear false witness against atheists - check!
    Fifth para: Complain about atheists sneering and debating in bad faith check!

    And so on. Whatever about the rest of it, and it's miserable, cliched and dull stuff -- though lightened by his splendidly inept use of the "root" as a verb --- his referring to Mr Craig as an intellectual really is unforgivable.

    If this is the best the religious community can produce when it tries to have dindins at the top table with the big boys and girls, then frankly, us atheists and agnostics don't have much to worry about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Let me look at the first paragraph:

    First line: Plug for own book including link to buy - check!
    Second line: Inflate reputation by dropping hint that self is so important that self is invited to partake in university-level debates in different countries - check!
    Third line: Inflate reputation by dropping that self appears on the radio - check!
    Fourth line: Inflate reputation by noting confidence levels - check!
    Fifth line: Sneer at atheists - check!
    Sixth line: Bear false witness against atheists - check!
    Fifth para: Complain about atheists sneering and debating in bad faith check!

    And so on. Whatever about the rest of it, and it's miserable, cliched and dull stuff -- though lightened by his splendidly inept use of the "root" as a verb --- his referring to Mr Craig as an intellectual really is unforgivable.

    If this is the best the religious community can produce when it tries to have dindins at the top table with the big boys and girls, then frankly, us atheists and agnostics don't have much to worry about.

    The great thing about it though, is that it sets responses like this up as wonderful examples of irony.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    [...] an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue.
    A sentiment I presume you believe does not apply in churches.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    [...] wonderful examples of irony.
    From a quick read of the piece, and a huge guffaw at the title, I don't believe that Mr Hutchinson is familiar with the theory or practice of irony.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    A sentiment I presume you believe does not apply in churches.

    On the contrary. It can most certainly apply.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Ok so let me ask you a question. What do you think of ''Faith''?


    ''Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen'' is as good a definition as any.

    I can never understand this christian obsession with ''proof'' - surely proof is the enemy of faith which is what belief is all about .

    If it could be proved we would all believe as we do gravity so what is the point ?

    This constant need for proof hides a secret doubt methinks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Onesimus wrote: »
    I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

    If he's admitting that his faith, which I'm sure he lives his whole life by and gets his morals and world views from, is illogical, then what's the point in debating? Don't debates use facts and logic? Perhaps he's impenetrable as far as logic, reason and common sense are concerned. A genuine shield of ignorance, worn proudly.

    Onesimus wrote: »
    When it comes to Atheists being ''mean'' I suppose what he is saying that is their behaviour is mean and their arguments not rationalistic but tend to be just a wave of insults and snide remarks that do tend to get a few chuckles even from himself. But that they fail each time to respond with a rationalistic argument and fall back to schoolyard name calling.

    Forgive me for sounding snide, but using the word 'mean' sounds like we're back in the school yard. "I'm tellin teacher!"
    Onesimus wrote: »
    I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God. But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

    The mockery and insulting provided by Atheists is the church's comeuppance for their contempt for people. Silly pictures should be the least of their worries. As regards the child raping priests and the sick, twisted bishops who protected them, jail is too good for 'em.

    BTW, there are plenty of arguments, not just for the non-existence of god, but reasons why we have outgrown religion. It's sooo last Century.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Um, at least read the link I gave you.

    Here is how the -world- works.

    Someone claims something is true. Everyone else says 'Prove it'.

    In this case, Christianity claims God is real. They have yet to prove it.

    How many times have I seen this argument spelled out for theist posters?

    You'll notice too that the language has to be as simple as possible. Even when you mention Russell's teapot they still don't get it. Debating with a theist requires the 'patience of a saint'.

    (I now have an image in my head, of a pigeon on a chess board)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    I've never believed in a god - I was born not believing in a god and nothing I've seen, heard or read since has convinced me otherwise...why on earth should the burden be on me to prove anything? Surely it's up to those who were convinced to show who, what, where and how their god exists?



    Says the theist who waltzes in and accuses everyone of bad manner...hey black pot...

    Can you prove you were born that way?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,947 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you prove you were born that way?

    Geography is proof. Until they reach an age where they learn about all religions and choose religion for themselves, children grow up believing in whatever religion their parents believe in. Born in a predominantly Christian country to Christian parents, you'll believe in the Christian God. Born in a predominantly Muslim country to Muslim parents, you'll believe in the Muslim God etc.

    That means that belief is not something you are born with, but something learnt and instilled from family and society. Then when you reach an age where you can decide religion for yourself, the vast majority stick with the religion they were raised in because that's the religion they were always taught. Some people convert to other religions for various reasons, and some give up religion altogether.

    It's not something you're born with because if Christian parents gave a child up for adoption and it was adopted by Jewish parents, the child would be raised Jewish. Your religion from birth is decided by external factors, not internal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Penn wrote: »
    Geography is proof. Until they reach an age where they learn about all religions and choose religion for themselves, children grow up believing in whatever religion their parents believe in. Born in a predominantly Christian country to Christian parents, you'll believe in the Christian God. Born in a predominantly Muslim country to Muslim parents, you'll believe in the Muslim God etc.

    That means that belief is not something you are born with, but something learnt and instilled from family and society. Then when you reach an age where you can decide religion for yourself, the vast majority stick with the religion they were raised in because that's the religion they were always taught. Some people convert to other religions for various reasons, and some give up religion altogether.

    It's not something you're born with because if Christian parents gave a child up for adoption and it was adopted by Jewish parents, the child would be raised Jewish. Your religion from birth is decided by external factors, not internal.

    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.


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


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.
    Why is it you require scientific proof for something that is plainly obvious, yet you don't care for scientific proof for the existence of god?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Why is it you require scientific proof for something that is plainly obvious, yet you don't care for scientific proof for the existence of god?

    How is it plainly obvious? Where is the scientific proof for what has been claimed? Surely if it was obvious there would be scientific proof?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

    Do you have scientific proof that your God exists?

    Of course not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,058 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.
    Wrong. You're back to shifting the burden of proof again. Which isn't surprising since you clearly didn't understand what that meant the first time around. There has never been any evidence to suggest that faith is genetic. Science has never found a "faith gene", or any evidence to suggest that there is one. Your theory is that faith is genetic, therefore it's up to you to present evidence to support it.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Do you have scientific proof that your God exists?

    Of course not.

    But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,947 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

    Really? That's your plan? Make false claims then when someone refutes your claims, demand scientific proof?

    Again, the burden of proof is on you. My claim is generally accepted scientifically as no evidence has ever been found that religion is something a child is born with. There is no "Christian gene" or "Jewish gene". If you are claiming that children are born with religion already determined genetically (something which has never been observed in science), then the burden of proof is on you to prove it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    28064212 wrote: »
    Wrong. You're back to shifting the burden of proof again. Which isn't surprising since you clearly didn't understand what that meant the first time around. There has never been any evidence to suggest that faith is genetic. Science has never found a "faith gene", or any evidence to suggest that there is one. Your theory is that faith is genetic, therefore it's up to you to present evidence to support it.

    Science has not found an atheism gene has it? so where is the proof we are born that way?

    I am here being inquisitive about atheism. and the claim that you are born that way. Your the one making the claim, so give me proof and convince me.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Onesimus wrote: »
    But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.
    Prove you were born not believing in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or any of the Hindu deities.

    And while you're at it, please show us how you have disproven these things exist to show us that doing such a thing is possible.

    Unless of course you are asking us for stuff you can't provide yourself, cause that would be kinda dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Onesimus, prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn standing outside the building that you're currently in. Go for it.


Advertisement