Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:06PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. You could talk that approach if you want but if you're consistent then you will have to accept every proposition which has no evidence. How could you tell which religion to hollow? They all have no supporting evidence so why not accept them all?

I take the opposite approach of reserving belief until there is sufficient evidence. I suspect you take that approach with every single thing except

Is there anything else that you accept without a shred of evidence?

Religion is not asking anyone to prove God exists or doesn't exist. Because it can't be done. it's about belief, and it's an intangible thing. If you don't have it, you wouldn't understand.

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:08PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to prove a negative, so I don't have to prove he doesn't exist, it's up to the believers to prove what they're saying is true. Up until they can do that I don't see any reason to believe them. Especially when everything they say is hearsay, plain untrue, or just bizarre.

Why should I or anyone else believe in god?

All animals including humans are controlled by instinct. Business takes advantage of human instinct on a daily basis.

Why, what has convinced you? I've found evolution theory to be much more convincing than god, all those experiments and results like modern medicine, computers, space travel all confirm that science is able to back up it's claims and prove it's theories are correct.

By over simplifying the process you can ignore all the information that science can actually present. You've essentially got your head in the sand, putting your fingers in your ears and jumping up and down on the spot shouting I'm not listening. That's really the only defense religion has left, to willfully not understand the facts presented to them. To describe the history of the universe as: big explosion, planets, stars... Is like giving a film review that goes: the film started, an hour and a half later it ended.

Again, untrue, the asteroid that wiped out the age of the dinosaurs lead to other animals taking their place. Nature will always turn a disaster into an opportunity. When an ecosystem get's destroyed it's bad for the creatures that died but an opportunity for the ones that survived.

"Believers" are not asking anyone to prove anything. They are happy to get on with their belief - you are free to go along or not. Why is that such a big deal?

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2015 08:12PM

katydid wrote: »

Religion is not asking anyone to prove God exists or doesn't exist. Because it can't be done. it's about belief, and it's an intangible thing. If you don't have it, you wouldn't understand.

Yeah its not asking anyone to prove anything. But if you take that approach with anything else you would have to accept anything that doesn't have evidence for or against.

I suspect you don't believe everything you're told. You just created a special category for religion which you pretend isn't subject to normal standards of evidence because it wouldn't meet your usual standards

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:18PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah its not asking anyone to prove anything. But if you take that approach with anything else you would have to accept anything that doesn't have evidence for or against.

I suspect you don't believe everything you're told. You just created a special category for religion which you pretend isn't subject to normal standards of evidence because it wouldn't meet your usual standards

Religion is not a science. It's not something that can be proved. Once you accept that you can move on...

Michael OBrien · 09-05-2015 08:22PM

katydid wrote: »

Religion is not asking anyone to prove God exists or doesn't exist. Because it can't be done. it's about belief, and it's an intangible thing. If you don't have it, you wouldn't understand.

1. Religious texts are full of claims about evidence for god, there are whole centuries of theologians that have developed empirical evidential arguments to achieve that goal (they fail but they exist).
2. "because it can't be done". that is ridiculous. If a creative all powerful being actually exists that interacts with humanity then it should be EASY to prove it exists. The problem is that such an entity most likely does NOT exist, yet people refuse to accept that so they instead complain about being asked to prove their claims.
3. It is possible to disprove many gods, just not technically ALL possible gods as there is no set definition of god that everyone agrees upon, thus an endless shifting of the goal posts occurs. Dishonest argumentation does not invalidate the investigation.
4. Belief is a state of mind. It is not something intangible magical. People gain it and lose it or it changes. You have people that go from christian to muslim, or go from muslim to hindu or from jewish to atheist, etc.
5. As an ex-catholic I had very sincere faith in god for decades, held (one way) conversations, felt special meaning from sermons at mass (as if deliberately planned by god), felt that warm glow from sincerely praying. Then I learned some more things about fallacies, psychology and science and that vanished into nothing more than a faintly embarrassing memory.
There is a significant error in thinking that those critical of religious belief never experienced them. If anything the ability to compare in hindsight the experiences with what we know now makes us far MORE certain of the error in our previous thinking than if someone had never been religious.

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:26PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

1. Religious texts are full of claims about evidence for god, there are whole centuries of theologians that have developed empirical evidential arguments to achieve that goal (they fail but they exist).
2. "because it can't be done". that is ridiculous. If a creative all powerful being actually exists that interacts with humanity then it should be EASY to prove it exists. The problem is that such an entity most likely does NOT exist, yet people refuse to accept that so they instead complain about being asked to prove their claims.
3. It is possible to disprove many gods, just not technically ALL possible gods as there is no set definition of god that everyone agrees upon, thus an endless shifting of the goal posts occurs. Dishonest argumentation does not invalidate the investigation.
4. Belief is a state of mind. It is not something intangible magical. People gain it and lose it or it changes. You have people that go from christian to muslim, or go from muslim to hindu or from jewish to atheist, etc.
5. As an ex-catholic I had very sincere faith in god for decades, held (one way) conversations, felt special meaning from sermons at mass (as if deliberately planned by god), felt that warm glow from sincerely praying. Then I learned some more things about fallacies, psychology and science and that vanished into nothing more than a faintly embarrassing memory.
There is a significant error in thinking that those critical of religious belief never experienced them. If anything the ability to compare in hindsight the experiences with what we know now makes us far MORE certain of the error in our previous thinking than if someone had never been religious.

They are claims people are free to believe or not. No one is suggesting they are scientific.

Michael OBrien · 09-05-2015 08:38PM

katydid wrote: »

They are claims people are free to believe or not. No one is suggesting they are scientific.

I like how you seem to talk as if you represent all theistic believers, or in fact ANYONE but yourself.
1. LOADS of people (creationism of any type) think they are scientific. IF they make any claims about reality at all they infringe on science.
2. Its not like these beliefs are neutral to society. Many religious beliefs include requirements to condemn others that DON't believe what they believe, including punishing anyone who leaves or attempts to convince their followers that the dogma is mistaken. Many in the abrahamic faiths go so far as to push belief in eternal punishment into society for transgressors.
3. We can see problems with religious belief all across the globe. From ISIS to the bulk of the more outspoken opponents to SSM. Religious beliefs affect the society they exist in. If they are true, then the effects may be worthwhile, if they are not, then they must be challenged. There is no other way to find out which is the case.

As a thought experiment consider this. ISIS is a form of strict ISLAM, if you actually listen to their reasoning, many of their acts are humane, good and morally perfect IF YOU ACCEPT THEIR BELIEFS. However I would think you would agree that it is our duty to question the validity of those beliefs because from our perspective as non-believers in that strict code of Islam, the beliefs are horrific and unjust.
Are you really free to not question those beliefs? Questioning beliefs have helped reform many religious practices to make them tolerable. In some cases this reform has been the saving grace for those religions as they can prosper with the new modifications. Most christians have no clue just how much their beliefs have changed since the alleged existence of jesus, or of the alleged proclamations of the alleged leaders of judaism, abraham and moses.

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:41PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I like how you seem to talk as if you represent all theistic believers, or in fact ANYONE but yourself.
1. LOADS of people (creationism of any type) think they are scientific. IF they make any claims about reality at all they infringe on science.
2. Its not like these beliefs are neutral to society. Many religious beliefs include requirements to condemn others that DON't believe what they believe, including punishing anyone who leaves or attempts to convince their followers that the dogma is mistaken. Many in the abrahamic faiths go so far as to push belief in eternal punishment into society for transgressors.
3. We can see problems with religious belief all across the globe. From ISIS to the bulk of the more outspoken opponents to SSM. Religious beliefs affect the society they exist in. If they are true, then the effects may be worthwhile, if they are not, then they must be challenged.

As a thought experiment consider this. ISIS is a form of strict ISLAM, if you actually listen to their reasoning, many of their acts are humane, good and morally perfect IF YOU ACCEPT THEIR BELIEFS. However I would think you would agree that it is our duty to question the validity of those beliefs because from our perspective as non-believers in that strict code of Islam, the beliefs are horrific and unjust.
Are you really free to not question those beliefs? Questioning beliefs have helped reform many religious practices to make them tolerable. In some cases this reform has been the saving grace for those religions as they can prosper with the new modifications. Most christians have no clue just how much their beliefs have changed since the alleged existence of jesus, or of the alleged proclamations of the alleged leaders of judaism, abraham and moses.

Anyone who thinks their beliefs are scientific are clearly deluded.

Of course one can question beliefs; did I say otherwise? But you can't question them one way or another as science, since they're not science.

Michael OBrien · 09-05-2015 08:49PM

katydid wrote: »

Anyone who thinks their beliefs are scientific are clearly deluded.

Of course one can question beliefs; did I say otherwise? But you can't question them one way or another as science, since they're not science.

Do you understand what science is? It is a study of reality to understand what really is going on.
ANY claim that refers to reality, that is believed to be true, infringes on science as it attempts to do the same job AS science.
So any Christian that believes in alleged historical events depicted in their holy books, infringes on science. Any christian (of course I am not limiting this practice to christainity, or in fact religion) that believes in revelation about how the universe works, risks conflict with science.
Even morality can come into contact with science, if the justifications given relate to reality. So while belief that a god might be upset if you do something is ok, if a reason for that emotive state is linked with reality in any way, it can be challenged.
Science is not just labcoats and beakers, anymore than art is just oil paint and canvas.

katydid · 09-05-2015 08:56PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Do you understand what science is? It is a study of reality to understand what really is going on.
ANY claim that refers to reality, that is believed to be true, infringes on science as it attempts to do the same job AS science.
So any Christian that believes in alleged historical events depicted in their holy books, infringes on science. Any christian (of course I am not limiting this practice to christainity, or in fact religion) that believes in revelation about how the universe works, risks conflict with science.

I agree. It's exactly what I'm saying.

ScumLord · 09-05-2015 08:58PM

katydid wrote: »

"Believers" are not asking anyone to prove anything. They are happy to get on with their belief - you are free to go along or not. Why is that such a big deal?

So we should just accept that people have the right to believe whatever they want and let them off with their believes? Let the people controlling the believes say whatever they want to the faithful and abuse that power over the faithful to achieve whatever goals they see fit?

Men should be allowed to consider women second class, because, some men believe that and their perfectly entitled to believe it? Racists should be just left alone because they're entitled to their believes?

If you're standing in a shop and hear a sales person flat out lie to a customer you should just stay out of it because that sales man is entitled to say whatever he wants to achieve his goal?

Religion should not be left free rain to fill peoples heads full of nonsense, religion needs to be held accountable. Sure people can believe whatever they want but if they expect everyone to just stand back and not question those believes, especially when those believes go on to affect the freedoms and quality of life of other people, then they're sorely mistaken.

Religious dogma tells it's faithful to spread the word and damn non believers to an eternity of torture. Why should that kind of dogma be protected?

katydid · 09-05-2015 09:01PM

ScumLord wrote: »

So we should just accept that people have the right to believe whatever they want and let them off with their believes?

Yes, as long as they aren't harming others or dictating to others. If they are, we have to point that out. But we can't dictate to them either.

obplayer · 09-05-2015 10:49PM

katydid wrote: »

Yes, as long as they aren't harming others or dictating to others. If they are, we have to point that out. But we can't dictate to them either.

The problem is that so very many religious beliefs are actively harmful to others. Often to the religious men's wives.

shaymus27 · 10-05-2015 02:50AM

Fr.Crilly,

How long was that money resting in your account ?????????

If it was only a short while it wasn't dodgy, but if it was there a long time you will have to answer to your God in the next life !!!!!

MrPudding · 10-05-2015 09:39AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Never heard of Pascal's Wager then?

I always find it somewhat amusing when believers try to use Pascal's Wager. In order for it to be valid your god either needs to be a complete moron that can't detect when people genuinely believe in him, as opposed to them simply hedging their bets, or it needs to be so shallow that even people pretending to worship it brings it some kind of pleasure. Either way, not a god I would have any interest in having a relationship with.

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Well the hearts of brain dead people work perfectly after death. Technically, you can live without a brain. You can't live without a heart.

I am no medic, but this is a gross oversimplification. The heart will continue to beat when higher brain function is absent, and a far as I know this is often called brain dead. There is also lower, or autonomous brain function, as well as a separate autonomous nervous system. If there is no autonomous brain function then the heart won't work unless it is being artificially manipulated.

So your statement is really incorrect. One can 'live' without higher brain function, in the sense that organs may continue to work, but with brainstem deaths it all stops and the only way the body can be kept 'alive' is by increasingly invasive artificial means. One only need to go back as far a christmas to see a vile and disgusting example of this in practice.

I really hope you have more than Pascal's Wager and 'we don't need a brain to live'.

MrP

tommy2bad · 10-05-2015 09:43AM

ScumLord wrote: »

So we should just accept that people have the right to believe whatever they want and let them off with their believes? Let the people controlling the believes say whatever they want to the faithful and abuse that power over the faithful to achieve whatever goals they see fit?

Men should be allowed to consider women second class, because, some men believe that and their perfectly entitled to believe it? Racists should be just left alone because they're entitled to their believes?

If you're standing in a shop and hear a sales person flat out lie to a customer you should just stay out of it because that sales man is entitled to say whatever he wants to achieve his goal?

Religion should not be left free rain to fill peoples heads full of nonsense, religion needs to be held accountable. Sure people can believe whatever they want but if they expect everyone to just stand back and not question those believes, especially when those believes go on to affect the freedoms and quality of life of other people, then they're sorely mistaken.

Religious dogma tells it's faithful to spread the word and damn non believers to an eternity of torture. Why should that kind of dogma be protected?

Yes.
As long as you have the right to voice the opposing opinion you must grant the same right to others.

indioblack · 10-05-2015 12:48PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes.
As long as you have the right to voice the opposing opinion you must grant the same right to others.

And as long as there are public debates like this, people also have the right to question the validity and motivation of religious belief.
As long as children are not told they may go to hell - or adults told that their inability to believe means that they have condemned themselves to an unpleasant eternity.
From the atheist point of view, we are all in the same boat - and will eventually all sink together.
For the believer - we are still all in the same boat - but they have managed to procure some lifejackets.

ScumLord · 10-05-2015 01:05PM

katydid wrote: »

Yes, as long as they aren't harming others or dictating to others. If they are, we have to point that out. But we can't dictate to them either.

You can't make someone not believe no but I'll put it this way. If you where having a conversation with someone from North Korea and they were going on about how their leader is so great, how when he played golf he got a hole in one every time, how he feels sorry for the rest of the world because you all live in poverty compared to glorious north Korea. Would you just nod your head and say "well, he's entitled to his believes" or would you leave him in his delusion? Would not feel compelled to tell him the rest of the world isn't living in poverty, that's it's actually a lot better than in North Korea? Tell him it's actually highly unlikely that their leader got all those holes in one?

Would telling him he's been lied to not be the right thing to do? I know I'm essentially suffering from the same complex as religious preachers trying to spread their message, but I think that's an innate quality of human beings.

shaymus27 · 10-05-2015 01:22PM

[QUOTE=ScumLord;

Would telling him he's been lied to not be the right thing to do? I know I'm essentially suffering from the same complex as religious preachers trying to spread their message, but I think that's an innate quality of human beings.[/QUOTE]

Yes but you are right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have no interest other than trying to help someone.

The religious preachers have self-interest in preaching as that's how they derive status and sometimes income. They are acting in self-interest, you would be acting in self-less interest.

katydid · 10-05-2015 07:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't make someone not believe no but I'll put it this way. If you where having a conversation with someone from North Korea and they were going on about how their leader is so great, how when he played golf he got a hole in one every time, how he feels sorry for the rest of the world because you all live in poverty compared to glorious north Korea. Would you just nod your head and say "well, he's entitled to his believes" or would you leave him in his delusion? Would not feel compelled to tell him the rest of the world isn't living in poverty, that's it's actually a lot better than in North Korea? Tell him it's actually highly unlikely that their leader got all those holes in one?

Would telling him he's been lied to not be the right thing to do? I know I'm essentially suffering from the same complex as religious preachers trying to spread their message, but I think that's an innate quality of human beings.

Not a valid comparison. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. One can certainly question a person's beliefs in things which are provably wrong, such as the age of the earth, but you can't prove there's no God, so how can you question their choice to believe?

katydid · 10-05-2015 07:18PM

obplayer wrote: »

The problem is that so very many religious beliefs are actively harmful to others. Often to the religious men's wives.

I agree. But there has to be a line between allowing people their beliefs and allowing other people their human rights.

It's actively harmful, for example, to engage in female genital mutilation in the name of religion. In that case, the rights of the young girl to safety and health supercede the religious beliefs of her parents or others.

On the other hand, if a community pressurises a woman into wearing niquab, it is unpleasant, but not actively harmful.

indioblack · 10-05-2015 07:25PM

katydid wrote: »

Not a valid comparison. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. One can certainly question a person's beliefs in things which are provably wrong, such as the age of the earth, but you can't prove there's no God, so how can you question their choice to believe?

I think you can - politely.
You can ask them why they choose to believe.

katydid · 10-05-2015 07:26PM

indioblack wrote: »

I think you can - politely.
You can ask them why they choose to believe.

Ok, but you can't ridicule them and say they are wrong.

indioblack · 10-05-2015 07:35PM

katydid wrote: »

Ok, but you can't ridicule them and say they are wrong.

Quite right, too.
In fact, you probably can't even say they're wrong if existence or non-existence can't be proved.
If proof is lacking, then it's down to motivation.

obplayer · 10-05-2015 08:50PM

katydid wrote: »

Ok, but you can't ridicule them and say they are wrong.

Sorry but I disagree. Ridiculing someone's beliefs is the same as pointing out that their beliefs are ridiculous. When someone says they believe that Noah's Ark was real we are perfectly entitled to throw our heads back and howl with laughter at their patently ridiculous beliefs. If they don't like that then let them show why their beliefs should be treated with anything other than ridicule.

katydid · 10-05-2015 08:54PM

obplayer wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree. Ridiculing someone's beliefs is the same as pointing out that their beliefs are ridiculous. When someone says they believe that Noah's Ark was real we are perfectly entitled to throw our heads back and howl with laughter at their patently ridiculous beliefs. If they don't like that then let them show why their beliefs should be treated with anything other than ridicule.

That's why I distinguished between provable facts and unprovable beliefs...

shaymus27 · 10-05-2015 08:57PM

My point about all their beliefs nonsense is that it is not really their beliefs
They were brainwashed by the environment they grew up in.

Educating people that they have been brainwashed should be a duty of every government.

If you grow up in a muslim country you will think being a muslim is correct.

If you grow up in a catholic country.......

If you grow up in India and believe in re-incarnation you think that's correct.

Surely the rest of us don't have to tip toe around people who believe anything they are told?

Believing in whatever unprovable beliefs people around you told you shouldn't mean the rest of us have to pretend we respect such brainwashing. Respect the people as people but not religion, if you think religion is nonsense.

katydid · 10-05-2015 08:59PM

shaymus27 wrote: »

My point about all their beliefs nonsense is that it is not really their beliefs
They were brainwashed by the environment they grew up in.

Educating people that they have been brainwashed should be a duty of every government.

If you grow up in a muslim country you will think being a muslim is correct.

If you grow up in a catholic country.......

If you grow up in India and believe in re-incarnation you think that's correct.

Surely the rest of us don't have to tip toe around people who believe anything they are told?

Believing in whatever unprovable beliefs people around you told you shouldn't mean the rest of us have to pretend we respect such brainwashing. Respect the people as people but not religion, if you think religion is nonsense.

That is YOUR belief. And a simplistic one. I believe what I believe because I have given it a lot of thought, and chose to believe. I don't need to be patronised.

shaymus27 · 10-05-2015 09:08PM

katydid wrote: »

That is YOUR belief. And a simplistic one. I believe what I believe because I have given it a lot of thought, and chose to believe. I don't need to be patronised.

What you chose to believe was completely influenced by the environment you grew up in, which means the environment you grew up in has decided your beliefs, not you.

What you chose to believe was dictated by what knowledge you had which was dictated by your environment. If you grew up in utah in a mormon family you would be a morman.

You didn't choose at all. Your environment chose for you.

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:11PM

shaymus27 wrote: »

What you chose to believe was completely influenced by the environment you grew up in, which means the environment you grew up in has decided your beliefs, not you.

What you chose to believe was dictated by what knowledge you had which was dictated by your environment. If you grew up in utah in a mormon family you would be a morman.

You didn't choose at all. Your environment chose for you.

Nope, my intellect and my considered thinking has led me to believe what I believe. Of course Christianity is the path I followed because, culturally, it is what is accessible, but it doesn't mean I accept it blindly. If I grew up in a Mormon family, I would have rejected it, because I have read about Mormonism, and find its beliefs unacceptable. I grew up Roman Catholic and rejected that in favour of Anglicanism because I thought about it.

You need to understand that it's not as simple as you think.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments