Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex wrote: »

Being a Christian I'm not sure you are in the best place to be throwing around accusations of condescension there Fanny. Tell me again how you worked out the true religion on Earth, what the cause and purpose of human existence is and how you have a personal relationship with the omnipotent being that created it all :pac:

I see. So you greet the charge of condescension with... more more condescension. Brilliant! Of course, I could easily ask you the same question and it would retain all the same empty rhetorical flurry. But as it would be equally condescending and equally cheap I'll resit the urge lest I'm accused of hypocrisy.

I've never claimed to work out the "true religion on Earth" (whatever that means). What I claim is that there is excellent evidence for the central claims of Christianity and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is speaking the truth. If you don't believe these claims then fine but please spare us the genetic fallacy and pop-psychology. I'm quite happy to admit that I could be wrong in my beliefs (I've struggled and overcome many doubts in my time and I expect that I'll experience many doubts in the future - and not just about matters of religious faith). I'm also quite sure that even if I am correct about God as revealed by Christianity I still have a very imperfect understanding of God.

While I appreciate your intelligence and your seemingly endless passion for engaging Christians in conversation, I think that your understanding of certain doctrines can charitably be described as deficient - at least from the perspective of classical/ orthodox Christianity. Consequently you spend a lot of time tilting at windmills of your own making. The issue here is that if you don't understand some of the foundational views of your opponents, or you can't, for whatever reason, accurately represent them after posting here for a decade then you probably never will.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. So you greet the charge of condescension with... more more condescension. Brilliant!

I meet the silly and childish charge of condescension with a rebuttal of hypocrisy. You know there isn't "excellent evidence" for the truth of Christianity. Aside from this so called evidence being constantly and consistently rebutted, you know this because not everyone is a Christian, huge portions of the worlds population flatly reject the claims of Christianity and the evidence that they are true, which tends not to happen if something is genuinely supported by excellent evidence (1 theory of electromagnetism - 40,000 religions).

The response from Christians, including yourself, is that this isn't an issue with the claims of Christianity or the difficulty with actually supporting the truth of these claims, it is an issue with those who are not Christian.

So again, spare me the charge of condescension when most of your posts drip with condescension for those who don't accept the supernatural claims of your religion. I can at least back up my position with something a bit more than just saying it makes sense to me.

And btw before you flatly dismiss my points by saying I'm misunderstanding Christian claims, at least try to understand the point being made and oh I don't know, point out what claim I'm misunderstanding and how this misunderstanding alters the point be made.

tommy2bad wrote: »

@Zombrex,
"If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him" Much wisdom in this little koan.

Not following.

What does that have to do with the point that God creates all the systems and standards that he then uses to judge and punish us by?

Zombrex wrote: »

Not following.

What does that have to do with the point that God creates all the systems and standards that he then uses to judge and punish us by?

The point of the koan is that if you find God then you probably are following the wrong god!
And your missing my point that God doesn't create all the systems, He created the 'world' He didn't create God so any conditions that involve God are not of His creation at all.
You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

SebBerkovich

tommy2bad wrote: »

You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

bad stuff = not God
good stuff = God

Thank God for Bacon

SebBerkovich wrote: »

bad stuff = not God
good stuff = God

Thank God for Bacon

Agree about rashers but the rest? Where did I imply any of that?

Zombrex wrote: »

I meet the silly and childish charge of condescension with a rebuttal of hypocrisy. You know there isn't "excellent evidence" for the truth of Christianity. Aside from this so called evidence being constantly and consistently rebutted, you know this because not everyone is a Christian, huge portions of the worlds population flatly reject the claims of Christianity and the evidence that they are true, which tends not to happen if something is genuinely supported by excellent evidence (1 theory of electromagnetism - 40,000 religions).

So you know that I "know there isn't excellent evidence". Unless you are privy to my innermost thoughts you over-egging the epistemological pudding. Please do not speak for me.

And you are still making the category error of comparing electromagnetism with all religions. We have spoken about this before.

Zombrex wrote: »

The response from Christians, including yourself, is that this isn't an issue with the claims of Christianity or the difficulty with actually supporting the truth of these claims, it is an issue with those who are not Christian.

I'm not saying there are no issues with the specific claims of Christianity (or any worldview for that matter). If there were none then there would be no need for apologetics beyond clearing up misconceptions and challenging intellectual dishonesty. I fully understand why people might have honest objections to Christianity. This is partly because I have thought some of the the same things myself and partly because I don't think that life can be wrapped up in a neat little package. There will always be ragged edges - even with true things.

Zombrex wrote: »

So again, spare me the charge of condescension when most of your posts drip with condescension for those who don't accept the supernatural claims of your religion. I can at least back up my position with something a bit more than just saying it makes sense to me.

If anything they ooze, not drip with it. But even then I don't generally think that my posts do. Hopefully less so these days.

I've never claimed that "it makes sense to me" is a defensible position to take. And that's why I don't make this argument. Again, I would ask you not to speak for me.

Zombrex wrote: »

And btw before you flatly dismiss my points by saying I'm misunderstanding Christian claims, at least try to understand the point being made and oh I don't know, point out what claim I'm misunderstanding and how this misunderstanding alters the point be made.

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you know that I "know there isn't excellent evidence". Unless you are privy to my innermost thoughts you over-egging the epistemological pudding. Please do not speak for me.

And you are still making the category error of comparing electromagnetism with all religions. We have spoken about this before.

I'm not saying there are no issues with the specific claims of Christianity (or any worldview for that matter). If there were none then there would be no need for apologetics beyond clearing up misconceptions and challenging intellectual dishonesty. I fully understand why people might have honest objections to Christianity. This is partly because I have thought some of the the same things myself and partly because I don't think that life can be wrapped up in a neat little package. There will always be ragged edges - even with true things.

If anything they ooze, not drip with it. But even then I don't generally think that my posts do. Hopefully less so these days.

I've never claimed that "it makes sense to me" is a defensible position to take. And that's why I don't make this argument. Again, I would ask you not to speak for me.

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

i think this is a case of you arguing about the colour of the seats when we are saying there is no car.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

i think this is a case of you arguing about the colour of the seats when we are saying there is no car.

MrP

I get what the debate is about. I was claiming, amongst other things, that while we both recognise the starting point of the respective world-views (broadly, theism and atheism), it's important to accurately represent the other person's perspective if you are arguing against it.

Does that make sense?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get what the debate is about. I was claiming, amongst other things, that while we both recognise the starting point of the respective world-views (broadly, theism and atheism), it's important to accurately represent the other person's perspective if you are arguing against it.

Does that make sense?

No Fanny it dos'nt . How much effort have you put into analysing and rejecting all those other religions bar your own ?

marienbad wrote: »

No Fanny it dos'nt . How much effort have you put into analysing and rejecting all those other religions bar your own ?

OK, so what part don't you understand? It's no good just leaving that statement hanging there.

I've read up and researched some of the larger faiths - Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, a fair bit of time into some of the ancient Pagan deities - in particular Horus - and I spent a number of months in India trying, amongst other things, to understand what Buddhism was about. But all in all loads more for me to learn. I've never claimed to be and expert in any of these beliefs. What exactly has any of this got to do with my posts?

To clarify, I'm not saying that one needs an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion or world-view to think it false. What I'm saying is that if you are going to engage with people of a particular world-view or religion then you should first understand their beliefs and represent them accurately.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

That seems to be your go-to response to any of these problems with Christianity, Fanny. It is all a big misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Which of course is a very easy charge to make when you don't back it up by pointing out what exactly is being misunderstood and how is that misunderstanding relevant to the discussion.

Which is where my charge that you know all this is coming from. You must (do) know that there are serious issues with Christian doctrine, not just "rough edges" because you spend so much time ignoring dealing with these actual issues, pretending instead that it is due to a fault with those bringing up the problems.

If I spend 10 years trying to change the subject to discussion on apologetics I do have the answer for, I couldn't do that without realizing that the issues I'm trying to change the subject away from are difficult issues.

That has just become the standard response on this forum though to all problems with Christianity. You are misunderstanding Christianity, let me explain how wonderful it is so you understand properly. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get what the debate is about.

If you get what he debate is about why have you avoided the point with time wasters and deflection? You either don't get what he debate is about, or you have purposefully attempted to steer the debate away from that point. Which makes your complaint about accurately reflecting the other side, and about people being patronizing, rather ironic.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And your missing my point that God doesn't create all the systems, He created the 'world' He didn't create God so any conditions that involve God are not of His creation at all.
You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

Ok, which aspects are fixed? Is hell fixed as part of his nature independently to God? Is the manner in which hell effects humans fixed independently to him? Is the system of justice God uses fixed independently to him? Is heaven's existence and its nature fixed independently to him?

In fact what can God decide independently of the arbitrary rules and systems (which just are) that govern his nature?

You quickly run into a whole host of things that just are and God comes little more than an agent of the universe bound to carry out the rules of an arbitrary system that just exists one way rather than another way for no reason.

As a Christian are you honesty comfortable with that and how do you resolve that with both what it says in the Bible, and the notion that God is deserving of the place humans place him at (worship, devotion, love, knowing that is best)?

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems to be your go-to response to any of these problems with Christianity, Fanny. It is all a big misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

Not so. I think it is reasonable to reject a particular doctrine. But this should be done from.

Zombrex wrote: »

Which of course is a very easy charge to make when you don't back it up by pointing out what exactly is being misunderstood and how is that misunderstanding relevant to the discussion.

I'm happy to point out where I think your views are incorrect with regards to the judgement. Do you want me to?

Zombrex wrote: »

If you get what he debate is about why have you avoided the point with time wasters and deflection? You either don't get what he debate is about, or you have purposefully attempted to steer the debate away from that point. Which makes your complaint about accurately reflecting the other side, and about people being patronizing, rather ironic.

Are you saying that in my time posting here (8 years or so) that what I do when discussing the fault-line between theism and atheism is engage in time wasting and deflection?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm happy to point out where I think your views are incorrect with regards to the judgement. Do you want me to?

Yes please, point out the incorrect views and how they invalid the point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you saying that in my time posting here (8 years or so) that what I do when discussing the fault-line between theism and atheism is engage in time wasting and deflection?

Yes. When you arrive at an actual problem for Christian doctrine instead of attempting to deal with it and possible face the fact that it is a serious problem for Christian doctrine you, in my experience (and don't forget I've been hear for most of those years Fanny) attempt to skill-fully move the conversation away from focus on these problems to either minor and irrelevant issues with specific statements or to safe areas of Christian apologetics. As demonstrated by the fact that we have spend a number of pages discussion how patronizing we each are rather than the original point that you didn't even attempt to tackle but instead simply dismissed with a reference back to a claimed but unspecified misunderstanding about the specific nature of hell.

"Classic Fanny" as one might say.

OK, well let me compose a reply to you outlining why I think you have misunderstood the concept of judgement and why I think at least some of the other objections you have raised in the last number of posts are wrong. It's a very busy time for me so it will be next week at the earliest before I have the chance.

And while I think that you are incorrect about my modus operandi, I will take it as a backhanded complement that you think I go about my business of distraction with skill.

In my defence I think that I am willing to listen to others and I don't think that I misrepresent their views even if I happen to think them wrong. At the same time I'm also keen to call people up when I think they are being disingenuous or wilfully misrepresent the views of others. That might explain why we have variations of this conversation before.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so what part don't you understand? It's no good just leaving that statement hanging there.

I've read up and researched some of the larger faiths - Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, a fair bit of time into some of the ancient Pagan deities - in particular Horus - and I spent a number of months in India trying, amongst other things, to understand what Buddhism was about. But all in all loads more for me to learn. I've never claimed to be and expert in any of these beliefs. What exactly has any of this got to do with my posts?

To clarify, I'm not saying that one needs an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion or world-view to think it false. What I'm saying is that if you are going to engage with people of a particular world-view or religion then you should first understand their beliefs and represent them accurately.

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

marienbad wrote: »

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

That isn't quite what Fanny means.

He is saying that if you are going to say "Christian belief X is stupid" you should ensure that you are actually accurately representing belief X.

Of course it should also be pointed out that just because someone says that belief X is not being accurately representing doesn't mean it isn't, or if the specific are mistaken that doesn't mean the over all point is invalidated. There is few things more annoying that someone saying that a large point about say the nature of God's omnipotence is invalid because you got the name of a Hebrew city wrong, or the exact order of a story in the Bible the wrong way around.

If anyone wants to point out that an atheist has made a mistake with a Christian belief they should also point out why that mistake changes the point, rather than just being an irrelevant factor. Christians did this a lot with Richard Dawkins' work, particularly in the God Delusion, getting hung up on rather irrelevant specifics as a way of purposefully avoiding the wider points that Dawkins was making. It is one step up from saying your grammer is bad so I'm not going to address your arguments :rolleyes:

marienbad wrote: »

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

As Zombrex said, this isn't a response to what I said.

I've not said that you or anyone else needs to have an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion before rejecting it. I'm suggesting that if you, an unbeliever, enters a place of worship to challenge believers on a particular doctrine or a forum dedicated to a particular set of social or political or economic or philosophical beliefs then you should know what they believe and argue against the content of these beliefs, not something that looks a little like them.

It might be that I have spoken rashly and Zombrex has a perfect understanding of Hell, justification, soteriology and he represented these beliefs with fidelity. But this wouldn't change what I was saying to you. Is that clearer?

I'm still confused as to why you asked me about my own knowledge of world religions after you now suggest that you don't need to understand all religions before debunking them en masse.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As Zombrex said, this isn't a response to what I said.

I've not said that you or anyone else needs to have an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion before rejecting it. I'm suggesting that if you, an unbeliever, enters a place of worship to challenge believers on a particular doctrine or a forum dedicated to a particular set of social or political or economic or philosophical beliefs then you should know what they believe and argue against the content of these beliefs, not something that looks a little like them.

It might be that I have spoken rashly and Zombrex has a perfect understanding of Hell, justification, soteriology and he represented these beliefs with fidelity. But this wouldn't change what I was saying to you. Is that clearer?

I'm still confused as to why you asked me about my own knowledge of world religions after you now suggest that you don't need to understand all religions before debunking them en masse.

This is the atheist/existence of God debates thread and I see that as the guiding principle of the thread. The fact that it is under the umbrella of Christianity is to me incidental , it could just as easily under any of the religion & spirituality threads , so I don't see it as entering your house. Maybe I am incorrect in that.

And as an off shoot of that I would be quite happy to never enter your house except but for so many of your fellow believers not being content with following their own beliefs but insisting so many others do the same and trying to enshrine those beliefs in the law of the land.

I asked about your knowledge of other beliefs in a rhetorical manner as I fully accept that it is not possible to have examined all them before rejecting them . And I presume you have done just that . In a similar way one does not have to have knowledge of Christianity and its hundreds of variants before rejecting them.

marienbad wrote: »

This is the atheist/existence of God debates thread and I see that as the guiding principle of the thread. The fact that it is under the umbrella of Christianity is to me incidental , it could just as easily under any of the religion & spirituality threads , so I don't see it as entering your house. Maybe I am incorrect in that.

I'm not talking about physical location - remove any talk of forums or places if worship if you like. What I'm talking about is actively seeking out another belief in order to refute it. If you have some specific problem with this concept then please tell me what it is. Otherwise we are just going around in circles.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not talking about physical location - remove any talk of forums or places if worship if you like. What I'm talking about is actively seeking out another belief in order to refute it. If you have some specific problem with this concept then please tell me what it is. Otherwise we are just going around in circles.

We are going around in circles Fanny. correct me if I am wrong but you said to Zombrex that he should understand parts of your religion if he wishes to debate them ?

Based on that understanding I am merely saying that is not the case. And also saying you yourself do the same viv a vis other belief systems .

marienbad
In a similar way one does not have to have knowledge of Christianity and its hundreds of variants before rejecting them.

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

And as an off shoot of that I would be quite happy to never enter your house except but for so many of your fellow believers not being content with following their own beliefs but insisting so many others do the same and trying to enshrine those beliefs in the law of the land.

Theirs the thing! I have another thread going where I ask why do believers feel so threatened by non believers? It seems to me that protecting their own patch by restricting others right to do the same is counterproductive. It strikes me that protecting others is the first step to self protection. First the came for...and all that.

tommy2bad wrote: »

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

Theirs the thing! I have another thread going where I ask why do believers feel so threatened by non believers? It seems to me that protecting their own patch by restricting others right to do the same is counterproductive. It strikes me that protecting others is the first step to self protection. First the came for...and all that.

Of course I can reject them ! If I find the foundational myth - there is a god-rubbish , then I can reject them without further ado.

Christians do this all the time to every other belief system as does Islam etc. I just do it for one more than they do.

We do this all the time in every walk of life , otherwise we would get nothing done.

marienbad wrote: »

We are going around in circles Fanny. correct me if I am wrong but you said to Zombrex that he should understand parts of your religion if he wishes to debate them ?

Based on that understanding I am merely saying that is not the case. And also saying you yourself do the same viv a vis other belief systems .

I said that if somebody want to debate X (with the aim of refuting X) that they should first understand X and accurately reflect what X is. RD was mentioned earlier and this is exactly what he does not do in parts of the God Delusion. An example of this would be with regards to Aquinas's 5-ways.

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I can reject them ! If I find the foundational myth - there is a god-rubbish , then I can reject them without further ado.

Christians do this all the time to every other belief system as does Islam etc. I just do it for one more than they do.

We do this all the time in every walk of life , otherwise we would get nothing done.

The trouble with that is, you could end up rejecting something because it counter intuitive. A lot of things are and they are still facts, true and provable or at least have a good hypothesis to support them.
I'm OK with anyone saying that they are not convinced by arguments for God or even that they are convinced by arguments that their isn't any god but unless you know something about their arguments, you just look a fool arguing against the them. All you can safely say is that the basic premise is flawed not that the theory of atonement, or nirvana or any other theory based on the premise is flawed. It might be completely wrong but until the premise God dose not exist is proven it could be exactly right.
The most annoying thing is when atheists say that atonement is rubbish because hell cant exist because the bible says different things, bla bla bla. Who cares what an atheist thinks of redemption?, they don't know what your talking about let alone what they are talking about.

If you set out to demolish an argument you need to know what that argument actually is.
So many times on this thread people have come on with misunderstandings of what some christian argument is and when corrected, refuse to engage with the answer and repeat the misunderstanding. At that point I suspect a misrepresentation more than misunderstanding.
Either that or they are the ones with deeply held beliefs.
While I was typing that Fanny made my point in a more eloquent manner:rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I said that if somebody want to debate X (with the aim of refuting X) that they should first understand X and accurately reflect what X is. RD was mentioned earlier and this is exactly what he does not do in parts of the God Delusion. An example of this would be with regards to Aquinas's 5-ways.

I think we are at cross purposes Fanny, all you are saying is that any discussion must have home court advantage , I say not so , I don't care about the immaculate conception , transubstantiation or the 5 proofs of St Thomas in relation to your world view but in only in a rational world view.

I know that nothing actually changes in transubstantiation , so a Christian showing me how something does change in his world is meaningless.

I expect them to show how it does in the world every one else inhabits .

I think this is the only reason atheists bring up these kinds of issue .

Morbert

marienbad wrote: »

I think we are at cross purposes Fanny, all you are saying is that any discussion must have home court advantage , I say not so , I don't care about the immaculate conception , transubstantiation or the 5 proofs of St Thomas in relation to your world view but in only in a rational world view.

I know that nothing actually changes in transubstantiation , so a Christian showing me how something does change in his world is meaningless.

I expect them to show how it does in the world every one else inhabits.

There is a misunderstanding between you and Fanny.

Constructive debate occurs when the topic is specific, and both sides have a good understanding of the topic. If you were debating a Catholic over transubstantiation and argued it is wrong because nothing physically changes, that would not be a good argument, because transubstantiation does not imply anything physically changes. Similarly, if you were debating a Christian over the validity atheism, that would not require any specific knowledge of the Christian doctrine.