nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tim Robbins

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hell we wouldn't have universities if it were not for religion.
Grow a brain and loose the superiority complex.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. The Greek philosophical schools were fairly advanced 2,500 years ago before Christianity came along. All Christianity (mainly the RC church) did was try to wipe these schools out and burn their texts and mind control people for as long as they could.

The only reason why the Christians (mainly Catholics) have interest in controlling universities is so they can still control people and control society.

Religion stilts intellectual development because it tries to tell kids what they truth is on something that adults have never agreed on. This is a very sinister form of brain washing. It is an objective fact that 90% of the worlds intellectuals do not believe in religion. Right, so why do have 92% of our schools telling our kids that one particular religion is true - 2 hours a week.

It would be far better to use that 2 hour to teach German, Unix or something that might be of use and has a basis in objective reality.

I have no doubt, we would have far better schools and universities if it were not for Christianity.

Anything can have dire behavioural consequences and stunt intellectual development

It is pretty hard to compete with religion.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a ridiculous thing to say. The Greek philosophical schools were fairly advanced 2,500 years ago before Christianity came along. All Christianity (mainly the RC church) did was try to wipe these schools out and burn their texts and mind control people for as long as they could.

The only reason why the Christians (mainly Catholics) have interest in controlling universities is so they can still control people and control society.

Religion stilts intellectual development because it tries to tell kids what they truth is on something that adults have never agreed on. This is a very sinister form of brain washing.

Mod Warning
I would remind you that, while this is the Atheist/Christian Debate Thread, the Forum Charter still applies.

Please try to discuss specific points rather than indulging in hysterical and absurd generalisations about religion.

Morbert

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In psuedo code:

if (a non believer points out you might actually be ignorant) {
tell them that love is more important;
}

While I don't agree with the sentiment of your post, I feel compelled to point out that you should have used a while loop.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In summary, there is no evidence to believe this crazy nonsense or the crazy nonsense of any other religion. Even though some people find it comforting - it can have dire behavioural consequences and can stunt intellectual development.

If you want more intellectual elaboration on that check out Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, Noam Chomksy or basically what nearly any intellectual has said about religion in the last 50 years.

But ah sure - you don't care what the intellectuals say... love builds and all that nonsense.

One minute the Christians harp on about the importance of truth and then they have an issue when someone is truthful pointing out the majority of intellectuals have think their believes are crackers.

Tim, your are being wilfully obtuse, totally misrepresenting what has been said. Lots of huff and puff about intelligence, but exemplifying anything but. Why don't you simply put down the spear and decide if you want an honest discussion, or if you are here to just let off steam.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Marien, as Christians it's not the first and neither will it be the last time in Salvation history that God warns us not to be 'attached' to the world first -

Jesus is pretty forthright in explaining how to recognise attachment to any kind of earthly treasures, and explains that what you 'treasure' in life, be it yourself, your freedom to rebel - that's where your heart is.

It's a Christians God given right not 'human' given right to follow Christ - and by extension it's anothers God given right not to be religious or a follower of Christ. We don't 'tolerate' eachother, or at least I would reject anybody who says they 'tolerate' the religious in their society as being a little daft considering freedom isn't given by man.

I don't really see the point in Tim's assertions about intelligence and lack of intelligence - Education or otherwise - There have always been Atheists, nothing new, and they haven't always been intelligent, neither have they been stupid. So what? Does this have a 'meaning' should it have?

I am simply making the point that the greater the level of education in a society the less belief in religion and using Ireland as an example. Would you agree or disagree ?

Over time I would assume intuitively that this would translate into the more intelligent being less religious, but that is just a notion.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In summary, there is no evidence to believe this crazy nonsense or the crazy nonsense of any other religion. Even though some people find it comforting - it can have dire behavioural consequences and can stunt intellectual development.

If you want more intellectual elaboration on that check out Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, Noam Chomksy or basically what nearly any intellectual has said about religion in the last 50 years.

But ah sure - you don't care what the intellectuals say... love builds and all that nonsense.

One minute the Christians harp on about the importance of truth and then they have an issue when someone is truthful pointing out the majority of intellectuals have think their believes are crackers.

It's interesting that you have defined who is an intellectual based largely upon their metaphysical outlook. Atheism, it sees, is not merely synonymous with intellectualism, it is a prerequisite that you demand if you are to consider them an intellectual and worthy of your time.

You're a character, Tim.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's interesting that you have defined who is an intellectual based largely upon their metaphysical outlook. Atheism, it sees, is not merely synonymous with intellectualism, it is a prerequisite that you demand if you are to consider them an intellectual and worthy of your time.

Hold your horses....I agree. It's a tautology to say that intellectuals are more likely atheist when being atheist is necessary for one to be considered an intellectual.

I've seen enough stats to be fairly convinced that great scientists/engineers/etc tend to atheism. I wonder if there's a breakdown on arty intellectuals, great writers and so forth.

*runs off to examine the frequency of atheism is the list of Literature Nobels*

Fanny Cradock

Tim and perhaps some others assume that intellectual ability is the defining factor in a person's atheism. But there is no reason to assume that this ought to be the case or that intelligence is the only factor. It seems odd that this should have to be pointed out to such intelligent people.

georgieporgy

doctoremma wrote: »

Hold your horses....I agree. It's a tautology to say that intellectuals are more likely atheist when being atheist is necessary for one to be considered an intellectual.

I've seen enough stats to be fairly convinced that great scientists/engineers/etc tend to atheism. I wonder if there's a breakdown on arty intellectuals, great writers and so forth.

*runs off to examine the frequency of atheism is the list of Literature Nobels*

something to be working on:

You accept the historical Jesus?
- Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
Albert Einstein, from an interview with the Saturday Evening Post

To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”
Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
Christian Anfinsen- Nobel Laureate in chemistry

If you like these quotes I recommend you get the book. Its a blast.
http://nobelists.net/

Tim Robbins

Morbert wrote: »

While I don't agree with the sentiment of your post, I feel compelled to point out that you should have used a while loop.

Would you put a while around the if or replace the if with a while? Discuss...

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's interesting that you have defined who is an intellectual based largely upon their metaphysical outlook. Atheism, it sees, is not merely synonymous with intellectualism, it is a prerequisite that you demand if you are to consider them an intellectual and worthy of your time.

You're a character, Tim.

It is best largely on their ability to think critically i.e. How good they are at maths, science, software engineering etc. If you want to be pedantic and say there are intellectuals who are useless at all of them but excel say at French linguistics - fine. But I don't see your point.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tim and perhaps some others assume that intellectual ability is the defining factor in a person's atheism. But there is no reason to assume that this ought to be the case or that intelligence is the only factor. It seems odd that this should have to be pointed out to such intelligent people.

If you are going to be pedantic about language it would make more sense your were pedantic about understanding the points people are making.

I am saying the more intelligent, educated you are the more likely it is you are not likely to be a religious person. This is vindicated by massive amounts of evidence. The majority of the worlds leading scientists, mathematicians, software engineers, critical thinkers etc are not religious. Societies that are more educated tend to be less religious. And societies were education standards are very low tend to be more religious.

I am surprised we have got this far without mentioning Stalin and Hitler.

JohnMc1

georgieporgy wrote: »

something to be working on:
You accept the historical Jesus?
- Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
Albert Einstein, from an interview with the Saturday Evening Post

To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”
Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
Christian Anfinsen- Nobel Laureate in chemistry

If you like these quotes I recommend you get the book. Its a blast.
http://nobelists.net/

Good post Georgie. Didn't Einstein also say in a magazine interview that Science should bring you closer to God. Not away away from him. or something to that effect?

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

I've seen enough stats to be fairly convinced that great scientists/engineers/etc tend to atheism. I wonder if there's a breakdown on arty intellectuals, great writers and so forth.

What use such a correlation if such a one exists?

- a pitfall for the great (in intelligence, wealth, looks, athletic ability) is pride. The proud can be expected to be less likely to be saved than the humble according to Christian 'theory'. Not for nothing Christ's pointing out of the difficulty the rich (in whatever form) have in gaining heaven.

- when it is pointed out that great fathers of modern science: Kepler, Joule, Newton, Linneaus, Boyly, Faraday, Bacon, Herschel etc were all Christian believers, the atheist response is to suppose them but products of their day. Could the same could be said of great minds today?

...or some such

-

antiskeptic

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am saying the more intelligent, educated you are the more likely it is you are not likely to be a religious person. This is vindicated by massive amounts of evidence. The majority of the worlds leading scientists, mathematicians, software engineers, critical thinkers etc are not religious.

Apparently, a 1916 survey by American academic James Leuba indicated that 40% of American scientists believed in God. In a 1997 survey by Nature revealed the same result. IIRC it was 40% believer, 40% atheist, 20% agnostic.

I am surprised we have got this far without mentioning Stalin and Hitler.

I'm surprised we have got this far in the Christianity forum without mentioning the fact that Christianity views very many of the religious as belonging to the same group as atheists. Unbelievers (in the only way that matters) both.

It kind of short circuits the discussion but it can't be helped.

Zombrex

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Good post Georgie. Didn't Einstein also say in a magazine interview that Science should bring you closer to God. Not away away from him. or something to that effect?

Einstein was likely a pantheist. He thought belief in a personal god such as the one found in the Jewish and Christian religions was childlike and naive. His references to "God" should be viewed in that context.

Oh and in the same interview as the one you got the Jesus quote from he said Jesus would never have claimed to be God, saying Jesus was too much of a Jew to break that commandment.

Tim Robbins

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently, a 1916 survey by American academic James Leuba indicated that 40% of American scientists believed in God. In a 1997 survey by Nature revealed the same result. IIRC it was 40% believer, 40% atheist, 20% agnostic.

I think you need to double check those figures.

According to this...

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Tim Robbins

georgieporgy wrote: »

To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”
Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
Christian Anfinsen- Nobel Laureate in chemistry

If you like these quotes I recommend you get the book. Its a blast.
http://nobelists.net/

Darwin considered it very seriously but lost his faith. Einstein's comments on the matter are consistently twisted and warped.

No-one is saying 0% of of the worlds bests scientists are religious what is being said is very few. All you can provide as exceptions is very few so you are agreeing with the argument not refuting it. That book lists several great scientists but most of them were pre the vindication of Darwin - for example Newton. It is highly unlikely Newton - for example - would have had similar views today.

doctoremma

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am saying the more intelligent, educated you are the more likely it is you are not likely to be a religious person. This is vindicated by massive amounts of evidence. The majority of the worlds leading scientists, mathematicians, software engineers, critical thinkers etc are not religious. Societies that are more educated tend to be less religious. And societies were education standards are very low tend to be more religious.

To clarify my earlier comments, I am quite happy with the correlation between science and atheism, general education levels and atheism and so on. What I'm less happy about is the examples of scientists/engineers/etc as the epitome of intelligence. Such people are not the only intelligent people in the world - the top five world's greatest thinkers (according to some dodgy survey I just read) are 4/5 arts rather than science - admittedly, all are atheist but that's not my point. I wonder if you consider arts subjects, the great proponents of which have to be considered of comparable intelligence to a Dawkins or Hawking, you find less atheism?

Scientists tend to be atheists. Intelligent people do not necessarily tend to be scientists though. I think I'm just sticking up for my artsy mates here.

lmaopml

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would you put a while around the if or replace the if with a while? Discuss...

'Discuss'...pml...

I'd defo but a 'while loop' around the 'if'

X would have to equal the number of times a statement is made before it becomes a Lady Ga Ga song that Tim sings about correlation strongly suggests causation considering only a and b and to hell with the other contributing factors that don't sit well.

and then the code would execute something extreme like putting all Christians asleep.

X is now approaching snore time, and Tim is grabbing the mike

I'm just glad it's only a while loop and not an infinite one...Dear God forbid!!

Seriously guys? Since when can 'intelligence' and the value of differing types be quantified in a meaningful way? .....and how? No wonder Jesus was a Carpenter - good on him.

doctoremma

lmaopml wrote: »

Seriously guys? Since when can 'intelligence' and the value of differing types be quantified in a meaningful way? .....and how? No wonder Jesus was a Carpenter - good on him.

Well, I think intelligence can be quantified in many ways, via tests, scores and educational achievement. This is meaningful because it helps you get a job

However, comparing 'scientific' intelligence to, say, 'word' intelligence is a different thing and you're right, very difficult to to achieve.

lmaopml

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, I think intelligence can be quantified in many ways, via tests, scores and educational achievement. This is meaningful because it helps you get a job

However, comparing 'scientific' intelligence to, say, 'word' intelligence is a different thing and you're right, very difficult to to achieve.

Couldn't agree more.

Least said the less mended.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Really? Do you really care what his objections are this time? I mean they've been trotted out time and time again to you and when they sting you ignore.

Yes, I do actually. I've spent a great deal of time listening and responding to objections. Perhaps I mightn't give you the answer you would like to hear, but that isn't "ignoring" a post.

I like getting into the nitty gritty of what this thing the Christian gospel is. I'm not a fan of indulging other people's superiority complexes or latent prejudices. I think there are much much better things to be talking about.

Tim: From what I learned in my philosophy degree, the burning of the library in Alexandria wasn't thought to be a deliberate burning. Also, Christians (fortunately or unfortunately) used Plato and Aristotle quite widely. How can you argue that Christians were responsible for this?

pauldla

Zombrex wrote: »

Einstein was likely a pantheist. He thought belief in a personal god such as the one found in the Jewish and Christian religions was childlike and naive. His references to "God" should be viewed in that context.

Oh and in the same interview as the one you got the Jesus quote from he said Jesus would never have claimed to be God, saying Jesus was too much of a Jew to break that commandment.

He also thought plate tectonics was nonsense. One can't be a genius on everything, I suppose.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because someone uses nice language doesn't really mean they have a clue. It is laughable, because in using all the nice words, including some faux outrage thrown in for good measure, he failed to grasp the point in relation to knowledge NOT BEING A BAD THING. It is rather the stupidity of man in acquiring knowledge (or in the context of this thread, the perception that one has knowledge) can make them become arrogant and inflated with haughtiness. Which is a very useless and unappealing character trait. That is NOT conflating knowledge with pride, but rather saying that how we deal with knowledge can lead to haughtiness as exemplified on this thread. In terms of Love, nowhere did I indicate it was intangible. So while trying to come across as all intellectual, he just came across as bitter. The problem with Tim, CC and it seems yourself also, is that your preconceptions seem to make you blind. You're already primed to disagree. I'm just waiting for 'John Wine' to come along now

I believe your reference was to 1 Corinthians 8:1, which can be read as

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church.
Knowledge, however, tends to make people conceited; it is love that builds us up.
Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
Knowledge makes people arrogant, but love builds them up.

depending on the translation you have. As far as I can make out (and you'll have to bear with me, as scripture is not my forte), the context is the offering of meat to idols. I presume you are not quoting the text to that end, but as a caution on allowing ones knowledge to lead to hubris, arrogance, and all-round smarty-pantsness. Whereas the Love of God, on the other hand, is good. Because, God.

Now, each of these translations differ in some way, but they all have one thing in common: how they use the word 'knowledge'. Paul does not say 'how we deal with knowledge', he says, quite directly, 'knowledge', and it is knowledge which makes us arrogant and/or conceited.

Therefore I think CerebralCortex is quite right when he says that Paul has conflated knowledge with prideful hubris. That's exactly what the man wrote.

I don't agree with my honoured namesake: knowledge can lead to the Library of Alexandria, and Love of God can lead to all sorts of nasty goings-on. Or if you want it put more glibly, knowledge has fed more than any number of loaves and fishes.

Two questions, if I may: what do you mean by 'the stupidity of man in acquiring knowledge', and do you think that love is tangible or intangible?

georgieporgy

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Good post Georgie. Didn't Einstein also say in a magazine interview that Science should bring you closer to God. Not away away from him. or something to that effect?

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html#.UE7llZHs36M

This seems to be the best source for info on the religious views of a variety of historical characters. As for Einstein, his origin is jewish and he attended roman catholic school. And he was not anti religion. I suppose the reason he failed to come to know Truth Incarnate is he didn't "become as a little child".

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Morbert wrote: »

While I don't agree with the sentiment of your post, I feel compelled to point out that you should have used a while loop.

Would you put a while around the if or replace the if with a while? Discuss...

Replace it with the while, because it may happen multiple times in the sequence. While it is true do x. Or if you're certain it's going to happen at least once use a do while

tommy2bad

tommy2bad wrote: »

Apologies to Cerebral Cortex, I mixed him/her up with this poster.

I have read all of the above and agree with lots of what they say and disagree with lots of it too. So what?
The majority don't think they are crackers just the recent ones.
Anything can have dire behavioural consequences and stunt intellectual development. It can also have good behavoural consequences and inspire intellectual development. Hell we wouldn't have universities if it were not for religion.
Grow a brain and loose the superiority complex.

Apologies to Tim for my remark, I post on forums with a more robust posting style and sometimes forget where I am.
My bad as the young people used to say.

Zombrex

pauldla wrote: »

He also thought plate tectonics was nonsense. One can't be a genius on everything, I suppose.

Plate tectonics? Sure he thought quantum uncertainty was nonsense! He was clearly a moron. Which is why I wondered why some Christians thought he was helping their cause :P

Zombrex

I'm sure lots of intelligent people (even scientists) believe astrology. It is still a stupid idea, but that appeals to people through a manipulation of particular mental traits of humans, rather than rational determination. Or to put it another way, you have to actively invoke your rational brain to remind yourself how stupid it is. If you don't actively invoke this critical analysis and simply accept what you instincts tell you, it seems to make sense. Or to put it another way, the part of least resistance is to simple accept astrology.

You can call an idea stupid without calling the person who accepts that idea stupid. Christianity is stupid. That doesn't mean everyone who accepts it is stupid. People should remember that. There are very specific reasons why Christianity can appear very appealing to someone and none of these are because the person is of lesser intelligence.