Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

georgesstreet wrote: »

Am I the only one who has no idea what your critique of atheism might be? Or why you are waiting for your own critique of atheism?

I was promised such a critique a few days ago by one of our fellows.

tommy2bad

pauldla wrote: »

Still waiting for my critique of atheism using the basic laws of logic.

I hope it's as entertaining as the rest of this thread!

Isn't the critique of everything Münchhausen trilemma!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

tommy2bad wrote: »

Isn't the critique of everything Münchhausen trilemma!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

So, in vain I wait? Alas, should I not have seen that coming?

pauldla wrote: »

I was promised such a critique a few days ago by one of our fellows.

Ah, ok, so its his critique you are waiting for rather than your own. Have you considered sending him a private message?

georgesstreet wrote: »

Ah, ok, so its his critique you are waiting for rather than your own. Have you considered sending him a private message?

No, better to keep things out in the open, I find.

pauldla wrote: »

No, better to keep things out in the open, I find.

You don't consider your private correspondence between you and this other person might be more appropriately conducted other than in a public forum? Eh, ok.

_Redzer_

SoulandForm wrote: »

All Christians are full on Creationist-all Christians believe in an Uncreated Being responsible for all creation coming into being.

Wrong. Evolution exists and it's seen every single solid day. Drug resistant bacteria is just one example of evolution.

How can bacteria develop an immunity to drugs if they're static and unchanging? If creationism was true that would be fantastic in this ever worsening problem, but it's not. It's just flat out wrong.

georgesstreet wrote: »

You don't consider your private correspondence between you and this other person might be more appropriately conducted other than in a public forum? Eh, ok.

I have not engaged in any private correspondence with any poster arising from this forum. Nor do I intend to. My request to the poster was a result of statements they made on this forum. Am I to understand that this is now a problem?

pauldla wrote: »

My request to the poster was a result of statements they made on this forum.

We would seem to be at cross purposes, as I have no idea what requests you made on this thread.

I was referring to your announcements about yourself such as

pauldla wrote: »

Still waiting for my critique of atheism using the basic laws of logic.

I hope it's as entertaining as the rest of this thread!

pauldla wrote: »

I was promised such a critique a few days ago by one of our fellows. [IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Jonathan\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif[/IMG]

pauldla wrote: »

So, in vain I wait? Alas, should I not have seen that coming?

And I wondered if making announcements about oneself was really what a thread about Atheism/Existence of God Debates was for. If you prefer to make such announcements about yourself, then that’s your choice, but to do so doesn’t seem to add anything to the subject of the thread.

MrPudding

georgesstreet wrote: »

We would seem to be at cross purposes, as I have no idea what requests you made on this thread.

I was referring to your announcements about yourself such as

And I wondered if making announcements about oneself was really what a thread about Atheism/Existence of God Debates was for. If you prefer to make such announcements about yourself, then that’s your choice, but to do so doesn’t seem to add anything to the subject of the thread.

What pauldla is referring to in these posts is perfectly relevent to the subject of this thread. (S)He is asking a poster for the evidence he claimed to have which shows that atheistim is objectively wrong. I would have thought this evidence would be fairly relevent ot the subject at hand.

Given that you have already admitted that you have no idea what requests pauldla made on this thread perhaps you should either, familiarise yourself with the requests made or, consider whether it is reasonable for you to declare a particular line of enquirey to be irrelevant to the thread when you don't know what the line of enquirey is.

As for comments about themselves... Not quite sure what you are talking about. The comments are in relation to a lack of response to the request for more evidence about the claims made by anither poster. I am certainly very interested in seeing this evidence myself, but like paulada I expected, and expected, it presentation to be unlikely.

Not sure why you are being so critical and agressive over these posts, but a friendly suggestion would be if these ar ethe type of posts you like to make you sould at least try to get some idea of what you are talking about and perhaps the history behind them. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a bit of a dick.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

What pauldla is referring to in these posts is perfectly relevent to the subject of this thread. (S)He is asking a poster for the evidence he claimed to have which shows that atheistim is objectively wrong. I would have thought this evidence would be fairly relevent ot the subject at hand.

Given that you have already admitted that you have no idea what requests pauldla made on this thread perhaps you should either, familiarise yourself with the requests made or, consider whether it is reasonable for you to declare a particular line of enquirey to be irrelevant to the thread when you don't know what the line of enquirey is.

As for comments about themselves... Not quite sure what you are talking about. The comments are in relation to a lack of response to the request for more evidence about the claims made by anither poster. I am certainly very interested in seeing this evidence myself, but like paulada I expected, and expected, it presentation to be unlikely.

Not sure why you are being so critical and agressive over these posts, but a friendly suggestion would be if these ar ethe type of posts you like to make you sould at least try to get some idea of what you are talking about and perhaps the history behind them. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a bit of a dick.

MrP

I have no doubt that the initial request was relevant. What I am curious about is why anyone should choose to make personal announcements about oneself, such as those illustrated in my last post, in a discussion supposed to be about the interesting topic of Atheism/Existence of God Debates.

The particular posts I gave examples of are not, as you claim, "asking a poster for the evidence he claimed to have which shows that atheistim is objectively wrong".

If you feel this thread is enriched by individuals making announcements about themselves, such as in the examples I gave, then we disagree.

Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: Less of the backseat modding, please. People are enabled to post whatever they like here provided that it relates to the topic and is in keeping with the charter. Use the "report post" button if there is a problem.

This is Hitchens explaining the 10 commandments which I think interesting, and relevant to the topic.

Lantus

georgesstreet wrote: »

This is Hitchens explaining the 10 commandments which I think interesting, and relevant to the topic.

good little vid and does expose some of the very worse contradictions within religious texts like the Bible. If God is hyper intelligent he could of used the words possessions instead of ox, sheep and women for example and to some extent future proofed his list. However, if a person had wrote this they would be hard pushed to imagine a time where these things are no longer relevant. In effect the alleged existence of God is in many ways caught out by the use of such poor language that is so subject to interpretation.

What is surprising and sad is that more people do not see the inherent problems and contradictions with religion and books like the bible. Why are thousands of people so easily indoctrinated to believe in an invisible man in the sky without any evidence in a society where we are becoming technologically emergent? The challenge is to educate our children in a more relevant form of education so they can improve and enhance society and the life's of every person on this planet.

Lantus wrote: »

What is surprising and sad is that more people do not see the inherent problems and contradictions with religion and books like the bible. Why are thousands of people so easily indoctrinated to believe in an invisible man in the sky without any evidence in a society where we are becoming technologically emergent?

The essential answer to that seems to be because they want to believe it. Evidence is really not relevant to someone who wants to believe anything, especially if the evidence might contradict their world view, and many even cite their own "belief" as trumping any evidence.

They will tell you they know what god wants of us often with astonishing certainty, yet if you point out any contradictions they will tell you god is mysterious and we cant possibly know what he wants.

While its often fun to argue with such people, essentially they are not arguing from any sort of rational or logical or even reasonable viewpoint, and will keep shifting the goal posts as mentioned in my last paragraph. Another favourite is to quote scripture as if scripture trumps all, yet if you quote back other parts of scripture which contradict their argument, they really have no response.

nagirrac

Lantus wrote: »

What is surprising and sad is that more people do not see the inherent problems and contradictions with religion and books like the bible. Why are thousands of people so easily indoctrinated to believe in an invisible man in the sky without any evidence in a society where we are becoming technologically emergent? The challenge is to educate our children in a more relevant form of education so they can improve and enhance society and the life's of every person on this planet.

The main issue though is that people do not understand religion and the role it has played in human societies since the dawn of mankind (and possibly earlier as there is evidence Neanderthals indulged in rituals associated with burial). This is equally true of many religious people, in particular fundamentalists, and atheists, both of whom insist on reading ancient texts literally. Hint: Someone should ask the Jews about the Old Testament, the texts that most of the arguments on interpretation are based on.

The bible along with much of ancient literature of the time is mythos, an attempt to find meaning in the human condition. It was never meant to be read literally and the authors would likely find the modern idea of reading it literally hilarious. In the early philosophies of Mesopotamia and Greece, you had logos and mythos, logos is the equivalent of modern day science based on observation or the external, and mythos is closest to modern day psychology, trying to make sense of the internal. Both are valid means of enquiry, and although logos has had spectacular success in recent centuries (with mixed results for humanity), when it comes to finding meaning it does not help in the slightest.

Science, and reason for that matter, are completely silent in trying to deal with the paradoxes of the human condition, and throughout human history religious ritual and belief is how we have confronted for example despair and grief. Although some would say this is a band aid, the counter argument is we may not have survived as a species without it.

I certainly agree it is long past time we should move on from the nonsense we have had in recent centuries where some believers and some nonbelievers, both of whom are noisy minorities, dismiss and discredit mythos. A good start would be understanding that mythos is not myth, it is the search for meaning in our existence.

El_Duderino 09

nagirrac wrote: »

The main issue though is that people do not understand religion and the role it has played in human societies since the dawn of mankind (and possibly earlier as there is evidence Neanderthals indulged in rituals associated with burial). This is equally true of many religious people, in particular fundamentalists, and atheists, both of whom insist on reading ancient texts literally.

I'll bite.

Which ancient texts do atheists read literally?

nagirrac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll bite.

Which ancient texts do atheists read literally?

If you hop over to the Noah's ark discussion (renamed sarky vs JC) on the A&A forum, you will find pages and pages of posts from atheists (and a few fundamentalist Christians) based on a literal reading of the bible, specifically Genesis. My point is that these texts were written in ancient times by people who clearly understood and made the distinction between logos and mythos. If it doubt people should check how Jews interpret their ancient texts. The great majority of Jews regard Genesis and other ancient texts as metaphor and allegory, and are astounded that anyone reads it literally.

Jews are arguably the most committed as a people to learning and education, I think it makes sense to listen to what they have to say about their texts, rather than some braying jackass from Mississippi.

tommy2bad

In fact literal readings of biblical texts is a modern phenomena. Possibly a reaction to the uncertainties caused by the rise of science and the rate of change or just because the bible became more widely read as literacy rates increased.
Either way this misreading has become a thorn in the side of believers ever since. On one hand we have people who insist that it means what it says literally and on the other people who insist it, er... means what it says literally. Ironic no!

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

If you hop over to the Noah's ark discussion (renamed sarky vs JC) on the A&A forum, you will find pages and pages of posts from atheists (and a few fundamentalist Christians) based on a literal reading of the bible, specifically Genesis. My point is that these texts were written in ancient times by people who clearly understood and made the distinction between logos and mythos. If it doubt people should check how Jews interpret their ancient texts. The great majority of Jews regard Genesis and other ancient texts as metaphor and allegory, and are astounded that anyone reads it literally.

Jews are arguably the most committed as a people to learning and education, I think it makes sense to listen to what they have to say about their texts, rather than some braying jackass from Mississippi.

In the main it is only when those groups try to impose their interpretations on others , be they believers or not, that the problems arise.

In my experience the vast majority of atheist couldn't give a flying fcuk about ancient texts provided someone's else's interpretation does not impact on our lives today.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

In the main it is only when those groups try to impose their interpretations on others , be they believers or not, that the problems arise.

I agree and would add that problems arise when ideology is forced on people, period. It doesn't have to be religious ideology, the vast majority of infringements on rights, in particular the most murderous, over the past century were due to political and social ideology. Freedom from religion is less of an issue now in most western democracies, the state is a much bigger threat. A recent example is the banking crisis, where the state, rather than holding those responsible accountable, transferred the accountability to its citizens. Ireland has suffered more from this state imposition of economic ideology than most.

_Redzer_

marienbad wrote: »

In the main it is only when those groups try to impose their interpretations on others , be they believers or not, that the problems arise.

In my experience the vast majority of atheist couldn't give a flying fcuk about ancient texts provided someone's else's interpretation does not impact on our lives today.

I'd just wish they'd keep their views to themselves. I've never seen an atheist go after a religion for no reason, but I often see the religious try to force their views on everyone, which in turn triggers a retaliation -which IMO is perfectly justified.

If everyone stayed out of each other's way we'd have fvck all problems with each other.

I've no problem with what people believe so long as you keep all that to yourself and within the church. You've no business airing your believes onto others just because you think everyone should conform to what you believe in.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'd just wish they'd keep their views to themselves. I've never seen an atheist go after a religion for no reason, but I often see the religious try to force their views on everyone, which in turn triggers a retaliation -which IMO is perfectly justified.

If everyone stayed out of each other's way we'd have fvck all problems with each other.

I've no problem with what people believe so long as you keep all that to yourself and within the church. You've no business airing your believes onto others just because you think everyone should conform to what you believe in.

Most "Religious" people are apolgetic and far from that in southern Ireland. Most actual Christians are relatively shy and not aggressive at all. As much as I loathe so much about the DUP at home I wish you could taste something of them.

Its atheists- particularly those from a Roman Catholic background who are the aggressive in this, like its a moral crusade or something or showing you fit in with the mob; in the 60s would have been after wayward girls or Communists.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Most "Religious" people are apolgetic and far from that in southern Ireland. Most actual Christians are relatively shy and not aggressive at all. As much as I loathe so much about the DUP at home I wish you could taste something of them.

Its atheists- particularly those from a Roman Catholic background who are the aggressive in this, like its a moral crusade or something or showing you fit in with the mob; in the 60s would have been after wayward girls or Communists.

What does this mean? Was the Church not very concerned about both these during the 60s?

pauldla wrote: »

What does this mean? Was the Church not very concerned about both these during the 60s?

The Church is the Body of Christ- not exactly the same thing as any hierarchy.

A rotten form of Roman Catholicism was introduced into Ireland through Maynooth Seminary in the 19 th century (the council of Tallaght was also part of this) which made Ireland so to speak the jewel in the Ultra-Monatanists crown. However looking at how fast and how deeply southern Ireland feel away from the Faith shows that their Roman Catholicism was built on pretty weak foundations- the same psychological drives that drive the puritanical (Im not not going to call it liberalism) mainstream consensus drove the the puritanical RC consensus of before; only now there is NO Devalera it stand in its way the way he stood between Ireland and something like Franco's Spain- of course now he gets the blame for everything LOL.

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Church is the Body of Christ- not exactly the same thing as any hierarchy.

A rotten form of Roman Catholicism was introduced into Ireland through Maynooth Seminary in the 19 th century (the council of Tallaght was also part of this) which made Ireland so to speak the jewel in the Ultra-Monatanists crown. However looking at how fast and how deeply southern Ireland feel away from the Faith shows that their Roman Catholicism was built on pretty weak foundations- the same psychological drives that drive the puritanical (Im not not going to call it liberalism) mainstream consensus drove the the puritanical RC consensus of before; only now there is NO Devalera it stand in its way the way he stood between Ireland and something like Franco's Spain- of course now he gets the blame for everything LOL.

Sorry, now I'm completely lost. So atheists would have been after wayward girls and communists during the 60s out of a desire to fit in with the mob, but the people who actually were after Wayward Girls and Communists (great name for a band, incidentally) during the 60s were the wrong variety of Christian for your tastes and so can be overlooked...?

Not all of them- but lets face it the same type that just go along with the mob and are seeking acceptance through their views would be.

Self righteousness is not something Im fond of; standing clearly for beliefs is another thing entirely, but self righteousness no...

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry, now I'm completely lost. So atheists would have been after wayward girls and communists during the 60s out of a desire to fit in with the mob, but the people who actually were after Wayward Girls and Communists (great name for a band, incidentally) during the 60s were the wrong variety of Christian for your tastes and so can be overlooked...?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Not all of them- but lets face it the same type that just go along with the mob and are seeking acceptance through their views would be.

Self righteousness is not something Im fond of; standing clearly for beliefs is another thing entirely, but self righteousness no...

...he said self righteously. :pac:

Are you really trying to equate modern atheism with some of the worst aspects of Irish Catholicism in the 1960s?

She-not he, Christian women do exist.

And you know exactly.

Ultramontane Catholicism which included internment in work camps of working class kids was part of Capital's control stratergy- now its moved and its social liberalism to break up communal spirit and isolate individuals so they are easier to control.

Those who fell for the first are falling for the second.

pauldla wrote: »

...he said self righteously. :pac:

Are you really trying to equate modern atheism with some of the worst aspects of Irish Catholicism in the 1960s?