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

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empiricism, anybody?

Build a brigde on faith alone, discover a theory of gravity on faith alone, do anything which involves the material universe on faith alone.

Come back to my great^10000 grandchild when you think you've discovered something that immediately doesn't fall apart.

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Build a brigde on faith alone, discover a theory of gravity on faith alone, do anything which involves the material universe on faith alone.

Come back to my great^10000 grandchild when you think you've discovered something that immediately doesn't fall apart.

A bridge isn't your "system of ideas". A bridge is a bridge. An example of a system of ideas, on the other hand, is Empiricism. It believes that the only reality is that which can be empirically examined. It believes that the only reality is the "material universe". Utilitarianism (which you also seem to be leaning towards) has it's own, circularly reasoned, problems.

I've no problem with dealing with the empirical world empirically (I'm a mechanical engineer after all) but that's not Empiricism.

MilanPan!c

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, delusion is never a gift. It is delusion that causes people to accept their lot when there is much better available to them with enough effort.

As Karl Marx said: "Religion is the opium of the masses". It keeps them docile; unknowing of and unable to utilise their true power.

I'll let Lenin take it a step further:

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

antiskeptic

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'll let Lenin take it a step further:

Step further??

Typical mid-level A+A rhetoric meets creative writing class.

No more, no less.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'll let Lenin take it a step further:

Marxism-Leninism actually has a lot in common with religion. Something that looked like a good idea in theory, but became a monster in practice. The only change really was the idea of God was dismissed, which by definition led to the idea of supreme leader as god (in God's absence). That worked out really well for the >100M murdered by Marxism Leninism regimes since 1917, and that excludes all those killed in wars in that same time period.

If you don't mind I'll take a pass on the next great idea for social engineering. People and societies need freedom not control, and Marxism-Leninism is all about state control, regardless of the prose by Marx and Lenin and their followers.

antiskeptic

nagirrac wrote: »

If you don't mind I'll take a pass on the next great idea for social engineering. People and societies need freedom not control...

..which is, of course, just another great idea for social engineering. And one that need not end as happily as the proponents would suppose.

6 billion egos all told that they are god?

MilanPan!c

Sorry.

So we're clear.

I simply meant that Lenin expanded on Marx.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I simply meant that Lenin expanded on Marx.

..and just to be clear, I was merely pointing out the great irony of Marx and in particular Lenin railing against the "spiritual oppression" of religion, and how Lenin used his power after the utopian revolution. As the old adage says "power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts".

tommy2bad

To be fair to Marx, he had no other model to use other than religion. When we read Marx we have examples of other forms of group oppression to frame his work.
Marx wasn't wrong. If he was writing now he might not specifie religion as the opium of the people.

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

It believes that the only reality is that which can be empirically examined. It believes that the only reality is the "material universe". Utilitarianism (which you also seem to be leaning towards) has it's own, circularly reasoned, problems.

First you call an axiom a belief. That is wrong, very wrong (but then again if you truly are an engineer you'd know that before typing it). Why empiricism thinks of the observable universe as the sum total is because it is the only way that we can actually get any work done. If scientists suddenly started going on about immaterial stuff nobody could say anything about (the position you hold) well then nobody could be certain of anything, in the postmodern sense of the world, in that any old nonsense (e.g. christianity) must be held to be true because someone holds it to be true, no matter how misguided their reasoning on that matter is.

Then you talk about circular reasoning, missing the giant problem within all religions of circular reasoning, to whit, "how do you know god/shiva/thor/jupiter is real?" "because the holy book says so!" "how do you know your holy book is telling the truth?" "because it is the word of god/shiva/thor/jupiter and he would never lie." So when you start criticising other, consistent and rational, systems of philosophy, be prepared to accept the giant gaping impossibilities at the centre of your religious belief.

Frankly there are so many ways in which your worldview is demonstrably false that I could go on for hours. But because you're still here peddling the same old plamas despite posters much better than I pointing out all that is wrong with your worldview I'll find something better to do with my time.

lmaopml

Some inner intuition tells me you won't give up wasting your time by posting here on the 'Christianity' forum - it seems to be a firm favorite of yours :P

How and ever; no, you will not find faith by looking soley through the scientific method for evidence, black and white etc so on - you might find it by looking for the beauty of what is found however...and by what inspires others to keep the search up - it's a start. There is beauty - and science it beautiful too - and then there are people, some lovely some not so much, but the 'quest' is rather grand indeed!

Brian Shanahan

lmaopml wrote: »

Some inner intuition tells me you won't give up wasting your time by posting here on the 'Christianity' forum - it seems to be a firm favorite of yours :P

A) I only look at one thread in this forum. The level of prejudice and bile in some of the others would lead me to believe some christians were very unchristian, if I didn't know the true meaning of christianity.

Unless you're really bad at figuring out meaning you probably got this, but I was merely referring to the fact that pointing out the number of ways in which antiskeptic is wrong is a waste of time.

lmaopml

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) I only look at one thread in this forum. The level of prejudice and bile in some of the others would lead me to believe some christians were very unchristian, if I didn't know the true meaning of christianity.
Unless you're really bad at figuring out meaning you probably got this, but I was merely referring to the fact that pointing out the number of ways in which antiskeptic is wrong is a waste of time.

Looks like my intuition was right. ;-) Anyway you are always welcome here one way or the other. Happy new year Brian :-)

Antiskeptic was having a discussion with you - and taking the time to do it without huffing about it. Probably my bad, should have kept my extraordinary nose out. Sorry guys.

Brian Shanahan

lmaopml wrote: »

Looks like my intuition was right.

You were talking about something which has no relation to what I was saying to antiskeptic. What you are currently doing is neither polite, helpful nor friendly. So I'll ask you kindly not to post on anything I say when I am posting replies to other people, because all you are doing is deliberately trying to get a rise out of me.

Safehands

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This is the old, "wouldn't a lobotomy be great" argument. Lots of people choose drugs and booze and religion as means of avoiding reality; are they better than reality? It's hard to really know if happiness is better than truth.

A ninety year old man, on his deathbed, is happy that he led a good life and that he will be rewarded in the next life. He has no fear of death because of his beliefs.
You approach him and tell him its all a crock of lies and that there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all. You are probably offering him the truth, but is he better off, in his situation, listening to your truth? It changes nothing, but it sure won't help him in any way. All it does is makes you a very nasty person for telling him this in his last few hours on this earth.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

A ninety year old man, on his deathbed, is happy that he led a good life and that he will be rewarded in the next life. He has no fear of death because of his beliefs.
You approach him and tell him its all a crock of lies and that there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all. You are probably offering him the truth,

How do arrive at this conclusion? What level of probability have you calculated? 2% chance? 10% chance?

Or is it just an assumption born of a worldview?

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

First you call an axiom a belief.

The claims of Empiricism aren't axiomatic. They are assumptions.

Why empiricism thinks of the observable universe as the sum total is because it is the only way that we can actually get any work done.

What about all the non-empirical "work to be done"?

If scientists suddenly started going on about immaterial stuff ...

A scientist is restricted to the empirical realm. He has nothing to say about immaterial stuff.

Then you talk about circular reasoning, missing the giant problem within all religions of circular reasoning, to whit, "how do you know god/shiva/thor/jupiter is real?" "because the holy book says so!" "how do you know your holy book is telling the truth?" "because it is the word of god/shiva/thor/jupiter and he would never lie."

Your back-of-a-cornflake-packet understanding of the claims of Christianity needn't be dealt with here, thankfully. The issue is the circularity of your worldview. And how you deal with the fact that at root you have belief.

I'll find something better to do with my time.

Your silence on defending your worldview is noted.

brian_t

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You were talking about something which has no relation to what I was saying to antiskeptic. What you are currently doing is neither polite, helpful nor friendly. So I'll ask you kindly not to post on anything I say when I am posting replies to other people, because all you are doing is deliberately trying to get a rise out of me.

This is a discussion forum open to all who wish to post. It's not your personal platform to attack christianity. You cannot dictate who can and cannot reply to your posts.

In a previous post you referred to YHWH as a "giant douche". This is neither polite, helpful nor friendly.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87630439&postcount=7630

antiskeptic

brian_t wrote: »

This is a discussion forum open to all who wish to post. It's not your personal platform to attack christianity.

Attack? This?

Then you talk about circular reasoning, missing the giant problem within all religions of circular reasoning, to whit, "how do you know god/shiva/thor/jupiter is real?" "because the holy book says so!" "how do you know your holy book is telling the truth?" "because it is the word of god/shiva/thor/jupiter and he would never lie."

A true attack would attempt to demolish the opponents strongholds, not assault claims that aren't being made*

* "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" viewpoint, which permits no discussion cannot suffer attack since the proponants have their fingers stuck in their ears and cannot hear your arguments.

Brian Shanahan

brian_t wrote: »

This is a discussion forum open to all who wish to post. It's not your personal platform to attack christianity. You cannot dictate who can and cannot reply to your posts.

In a previous post you referred to YHWH as a "giant douche". This is neither polite, helpful nor friendly.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87630439&postcount=7630

Oh so an unsupported assertion is sacred even in the thread set up specifically to discuss if there is any evidence for same.

And still it is perfectly ok to attack atheists.

Honestly, who do you think you are to be dictating to others what they can and can't say? I'm not spreading hate speech, I'm just simply pointing out that people's arguments are without substance.

And finally I am perfectly entitled to politely request that a poster whose only interest when replying to me is to try and make me angry on the fora to desist from replying to me. You don't have the right to tell me how to act when someone is being deliberately aggravating to me, and if you don't like this fact, well then that's your problem.

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm just simply pointing out that people's arguments are without substance.

Empiricism is axiomatic?

Were it that life was so simple..

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do arrive at this conclusion? What level of probability have you calculated? 2% chance? 10% chance?

Or is it just an assumption born of a worldview?

Are we talking about the probability of there not being an afterlife?

What is the probability of there being a heaven or hell? On what basis would you calculate such a thing, with no evidence for it?

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

Are we talking about the probability of there not being an afterlife?

Yup. You said there probably wasn't.

What is the probability of there being a heaven or hell? On what basis would you calculate such a thing, with no evidence for it?

I'm certain there is. That I can't provide evidence to satisfy others is a secondary issue.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yup. You said there probably wasn't.

I'm certain there is. That I can't provide evidence to satisfy others is a secondary issue.

He asked what probability though , so would you care to answer ?

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yup. You said there probably wasn't.
I'm certain there is. That I can't provide evidence to satisfy others is a secondary issue.

No its not! You brought up the topic of probability. How are you so certain?

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

He asked what probability though , so would you care to answer ?

I wasn't claiming probabilities so as to have to answer. Whereas he was.

You don't answer a question by asking one.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

No its not! You brought up the topic of probability. How are you so certain?

Er... you brought up the topic of probability. The afterlife probably doesn't exist .. you said

Remember?

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

No its not! You brought up the topic of probability. How are you so certain?

My being certain isn't a matter of probability. Probabilities can be shown to be arrived at to others. Certainties not necessarily

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

My being certain isn't a matter of probability. Probabilities can be shown to be arrived at to others. Certainties not necessarily

Can you decode please ? thanks

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

Can you decode please ? thanks

When someone says the probability of something is x then you can reasonably expect them to show you how they arrived at that conclusion

Someone can be certain of something without being able to show you why it is they are certain.