Religious obsessed by Atheism

Absolam · 09-07-2015 5:10am

feargale wrote: »

But he does know enough about Muslims to know that his interrogators know nothing about them.

He doesn't look so tough. I reckon he'd say anything under interrogation in fairness.

robdonn · 09-07-2015 12:45pm

feargale wrote: »

Ok, I get it.
Dara O'Briain is well versed in all aspects of Christianity, the good, the bad and the ugly, which is why he does jokes about it. He is knowledgeable about Christian philosophy, theology, history, the Inquisition, the sex and other scandals, the Popes' support for some shady people such as Mr. Franco, slavery practised by Christians, and the Crusades.
He knows nothing about Islam/Muslims, the good, the bad or the ugly, nothing about the Hajj, Ramadan, Zakah, the great civilisation of Cordoba, ISIS, al-Quaeda, 9/11, the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, the existence of slavery in some Muslim societies, the existence in some countries of the death penalty for apostasy, or indeed the Crusades. Therefore he doesn't do Muslim jokes.

P.S. Amend that to read: But he does know enough about Muslims to know that his interrogators know nothing about them.

There is a difference between knowing about a topic and knowing enough about a topic that you can make (very) public comments on it. I fully respect anyone who admits that they are not confident in their own understanding of something and therefore does not try to spout off facts that may very well be incorrect.

antiskeptic · 09-07-2015 4:22pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And FFS...have you ever considered it is possible to come up with a system of morality/ethics without creating a religion?

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

robdonn · 09-07-2015 5:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

We could try basing a system of morality on the inner convictions of women.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

When trying to create a system of morality you must first define what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean. If we define it as 'something bad for society' (simplistic for purpose of example) then it can be quite easy to make judgements of morality based on reason alone.

Murder has a measurably negative effect on society, as a social species we require a level of trust to function. If we were to allow murder then that trust would disappear and our species would cease to function cohesively.

As stated, very simplistic example, but one based on reason rather than conviction.

antiskeptic · 09-07-2015 5:42pm

robdonn wrote: »

We could try basing a system of morality on the inner convictions of women.

I meant, of course, men as mankind.

When trying to create a system of morality you must first define what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean. If we define it as 'something bad for society' (simplistic for purpose of example) then it can be quite easy to make judgements of morality based on reason alone.

You would, of course, be merely kicking the can down the road. If, for example, inner conviction told you that the God you believed in was in a position to know "the whole picture" and could, therefore know of far reaching consequences (in butterfly flaps it's wings in China fashion) then you might be prepared to forego the product of necessarily limited reason and align yourself with Him.

Murder has a measurably negative effect on society, as a social species we require a level of trust to function. If we were to allow murder then that trust would disappear and our species would cease to function cohesively.

As stated, very simplistic example, but one based on reason rather than conviction.

Understood. You might find God reasons similarily (bearing in mind that God himself, in killing, isn't murdering). It is an inner conviction of man that would suppose reason an ultimate means of arriving at a conclusion

robdonn · 09-07-2015 8:02pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would, of course, be merely kicking the can down the road. If, for example, inner conviction told you that the God you believed in was in a position to know "the whole picture" and could, therefore know of far reaching consequences (in butterfly flaps it's wings in China fashion) then you might be prepared to forego the product of necessarily limited reason and align yourself with Him.

And when your inner conviction of God's plan comes face to face with the contradicting inner conviction of someone else's God's plan, then what? When neither side are able to prove to each other, or the population at large, which one is the true path, then we must default to creating our own system that disregards both. The world should put a lot more effort into shaming people who try to change policies based solely on their beliefs when those beliefs go against the objective good.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(bearing in mind that God himself, in killing, isn't murdering)

The only thing that prevents God's actions from being deemed murder is that "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" does not cover the actions of imaginary beings.

feargale · 09-07-2015 9:05pm

Absolam wrote: »

He doesn't look so tough. I reckon he'd say anything under interrogation in fairness.

interrogate (third-person singular simple present interrogates, present participle interrogating, simple past and past participle interrogated)

1. (transitive) To question or quiz, especially in a thorough and/or aggressive manner.

You have a problem with that?

antiskeptic · 09-07-2015 10:11pm

robdonn wrote: »

And when your inner conviction of God's plan comes face to face with the contradicting inner conviction of someone else's God's plan, then what? When neither side are able to prove to each other, or the population at large, which one is the true path, then we must default to creating our own system that disregards both. The world should put a lot more effort into shaming people who try to change policies based solely on their beliefs when those beliefs go against the objective good.

In surprising few posts you've forgotten the problem given you. What, other than inner conviction are you to rely on? Your inner conviction that reason is the best route to objective good (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) is but: inner conviction. Your not going to prove reason the best way to morality any more than I'm going to prove God.

PopePalpatine · 09-07-2015 10:14pm

I base that inner conviction on empathy - I think you'd be familiar with the "Golden Rule" and the "Silver Rule", unless you've swallowed your Bible course instructor telling you that looking those up is a sin.

feargale · 09-07-2015 10:19pm

robdonn wrote: »

There is a difference between knowing about a topic and knowing enough about a topic that you can make (very) public comments on it. I fully respect anyone who admits that they are not confident in their own understanding of something and therefore does not try to spout off facts that may very well be incorrect.

That's a lame defence of O'Briain's inconsistent apologia and his arrogant presumptiousness regarding the level of knowledge about Islam possessed by his interrogators.
Des McHale was honest. When asked the same question he said he didn't do Muslim jokes because he was scared.
Charlie Hebdo is principled satire as opposed to cheque-book satire.

antiskeptic · 09-07-2015 10:27pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I base that inner conviction on empathy

Wouldn't empathy merely belong to the group of inner convictions? If basing morality on what you find springs naturally from you then what's your basis for proposing society adhere you your and your ilks inner convictions?

Andrewf20 · 09-07-2015 10:45pm

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

feargale · 09-07-2015 11:26pm

expectationlost wrote: »

what is it with this people who claim to happy in their faith but are obssesed by atheism huh?

This thread has strayed far from OP. To address OP's question would it not be a good idea to do spot checks of Christianity and A&A threads and to report back the number of references to Atheism in Christianity threads and vice versa?

The Black Oil · 09-07-2015 11:33pm

I take Dara O' Briain's remarks at face value. I've seen that meme and Youtube clip before, but admittedly not the full gig in question. I think the other point he's making, and you find this online too, is that some of people who press him on this aren't actually interested in an answer. They do so as a form of self-congratulation and to service their own narrative that no one ever touches Islam or Muslims.

Marcus Brigstocke - shocker - a left wing comedian - has ranted about most religions in the past, including Islam. Whether he still does, I've no idea. Religions should be open to being mocked, however imo if you don't have experience of the cultural baggage it's a little hard to construct material that nails the target, somehow manages to tape into the zeitgeist and also contains a few necessary home truths.

O' Briain is one of the safer comedians around and has found a formula that works i.e. large scale crowd pleaser whilst not being lowest common denominator. I don't really see an issue with that. Outside of his on stage work he appears to be more intellectually curious than some of his peers. Not sure the extent to which he puts that stuff into his gigs.

If he is avoiding Islam out of fear then perhaps that's no less self-serving that comedians who overindulge in Catholic bashing.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-07-2015 1:49am

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

Religious people choose which religion to follow and, importantly, which parts of its sacred text are 'gospel' and which are 'myth'.

The idea that a supernatural being can reveal a morality to humans through the word of other humans is entirely laughable.

'God's truth - he told me you can't do that - no you can't ask him yourself. He told ME.'

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't empathy merely belong to the group of inner convictions? If basing morality on what you find springs naturally from you then what's your basis for proposing society adhere you your and your ilks inner convictions?

Oh, I dunno, chop their heads off if they don't agree with me? It's what religions do.

Or, maybe, appeal to people's intellect and empathy rather than basest instinct and tribalism and death fears.

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 12:37pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it. Evolution isn't aiming to get folk to rely on each other and to help humans propagate.

Which makes the morality that would murder as much a product of evolution as the morality that doesn't murder.

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 12:43pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religious people choose which religion to follow

IF God reveals himself to someone in overwhelmingly convincing fashion THEN they've no choice but to believe. You mightn't believe the IF has happened but you can't exclude that it can happen.

In which case, the then follows the if.

gospel' and which are 'myth'.

Just as anyone does with any piece of text. What is true, what is fiction, what is allegory, etc.

The idea that a supernatural being can reveal a morality to humans through the word of other humans is entirely laughable.

If it's the God-inspired word of humans then. Another if/then which makes problematic your certainty.

Oh, I dunno, chop their heads off if they don't agree with me? It's what religions do.

Or, maybe, appeal to people's intellect and empathy rather than basest instinct and tribalism and death fears.

Have you read The God Delusion?

Pherekydes · 10-07-2015 12:48pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it.

Evolution gave rise to your god, hence any morality derived from this invented god can have no purpose, according to your good self.

Checkmate, eh, theists.

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 2:10pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Evolution gave rise to your god

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

robindch · 10-07-2015 2:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it. Evolution isn't aiming to get folk to rely on each other and to help humans propagate.

The "purpose" of evolution is to preserve genetic material. Getting "folk to rely on each other" does "help humans propagate" by helping to preserve genetic material, so sociability is central to evolution - in fact, there are entire areas of academic study devoted to the topic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which makes the morality that would murder as much a product of evolution as the morality that doesn't murder.

As above, that's a trivially wrong interpretation of evolution.

Religions, on the other hand, have evolved for the sole purpose of acquiring more and more believers - so religions have evolved to believe that the removal of non-believers from the memetic pool, either by execution of rules or by well, execution, is conducive to religions' health. That's why religions have so many rules regarding when, where and how people can have sex - they're interested only in getting people to have more babies, so that the religions can flood out other religions.

All of which works "fine" until the religions left standing have managed to evolve to have the same reproduce/kill dominance strategy in which case you end up with religious people overbreeding or murdering outgroup members.

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 4:32pm

robindch wrote: »

The "purpose" of evolution is to preserve genetic material.

The "purpose" of evolution isn't to preserve anything. Rather, the upshot of the circumstances life happens to find itself in means that some genetic material survives and some doesn't. That some life mutates so as to better deal with circumstances, so as to preserve genetic material isn't purpose, it's happy accident.

Getting "folk to rely on each other" does "help humans propagate" by helping to preserve genetic material,

There is no getting being done. What survives survives: some genetic material being preserved by it's survivability under the circumstances at the time .. and some not. With nobody or thing caring/acting/directing things one way or the other.

so sociability is central to evolution

...thus not. Sociability is central to the direction evolution happens to have taken. Which could be said of anything that was central to any direction evolution could have taken - including all life coming to an end.

There was talk of morality* being produced by evolution as if evolution figured this an essential tool in it's onward march upwards. Or something.

* presumably cherry picking a nice morality. Although how you figure evolution produced one branch of morality and not another is beyond me. Didn't it produce all flavours?

As above, that's a trivially wrong interpretation of evolution

For one so reliant on " "purpose" " and "getting" this is a bit rich.

Religions, on the other hand, have evolved for the sole purpose of acquiring more and more believers - so religions have evolved to believe that the removal of non-believers from the memetic pool, either by execution of rules or by well, execution, is conducive to religions' health. That's why religions have so many rules regarding when, where and how people can have sex - they're interested only in getting people to have more babies, so that the religions can flood out other religions.

I wouldn't disagree - although I'd permit a level of nuance that you can't. The God inhabiting the gaps of religion just as he does all other areas of human activity.

Pherekydes · 10-07-2015 5:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

So, an evolution denier?

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 8:55pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

So, an evolution denier?

A Godless universe denier. How it came about is another matter.

antiskeptic · 10-07-2015 9:15pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

Didn't evolution produce every version of morality there is in the world, in your view. If not, where else did they come from?

What do you mean by "evolution the basis for morality" when it produced diametrically opposed moralities?

Hotblack Desiato · 10-07-2015 11:58pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF God reveals himself to someone in overwhelmingly convincing fashion THEN they've no choice but to believe. You mightn't believe the IF has happened but you can't exclude that it can happen.

If they are overwhelmingly convinced, why can't they convince me?
I posit that they are far from overwhelmingly convinced, they are somewhere between deluded and choosing to believe because they find unbelief unpalatable.

Just as anyone does with any piece of text. What is true, what is fiction, what is allegory, etc.

So any piece of text is as ambiguous and/or downright provably false as the bible? That's quite a bizarre claim.

If it's the God-inspired word of humans then. Another if/then which makes problematic your certainty.

Worthless circular reasoning nonsense. 'What these people say about god must be true because it was god who told them because they say god told them'

Have you read The God Delusion?

I have a copy beside me, it's on the holiday reading list along with GinG and Hitch-22

Edit: been a while since we did this but it's fun

antiskeptic · 11-07-2015 10:43am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If they are overwhelmingly convinced, why can't they convince me?

Because they are not God. God could clearly convince someone of his existence - it's a different matter for 2nd hand news to convince - especially for something as monumental as this

I posit that they are far from overwhelmingly convinced, they are somewhere between deluded and choosing to believe because they find unbelief unpalatable.

Posit away. It doesn't affect the IF/Then one jot

So any piece of text is as ambiguous and/or downright provably false as the bible?

I can't say I've been impressed by typical atheist attempts as demonstrating the Bible any of those things. Terry Eagleton described one of New Atheism's high priests (Dawkins) as theologically illiterate. It effectively means you don't have the first notion of how you should approach the Bible in order to critique it.

Worthless circular reasoning nonsense. 'What these people say about god must be true because it was god who told them because they say god told them'

I don't think you quite understand the workings of an if/then statement. The only reasoning going on there is a logical statement. If the if true then consequences follow. If not not.

You're claiming not, but don't appear to be able to show your work, as it were. How worthless is that: I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

I have a copy beside me, it's on the holiday reading list along with GinG and Hitch-22

I'd have guessed as much by your style of argumentation.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-07-2015 1:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because they are not God. God could clearly convince someone of his existence - it's a different matter for 2nd hand news to convince - especially for something as monumental as this

Do the majority of religious believers actually believe they have heard god speaking to them? Doubtful.

I can't say I've been impressed by typical atheist attempts as demonstrating the Bible any of those things.

A flat earth at the centre of a universe created in six days about 6000 years ago, I think we can dismiss that as false. All humanity descended from a man made from dust and a woman made from a rib?

Then a man who was 600 years old built an impossibly large ark out of wood in an area with little or no trees, put two of every animal into it and then a geologically impossible flood which left no evidence behind happened, and once again (despite the genetic evidence) all humanity are inbred descended from one family?

Etc. etc. etc.

Now if you want to employ the 'it's a metaphor' argument, how far do you go with that? Is the very idea of a god a metaphor for a higher power within ourselves, as some believe? How do you or anyone else decide what is literally true in the bible, what is metaphor, and what can safely be ignored entirely e.g. most people won't stone their neighbour to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath or wearing mixed fibres.

I suppose that's the reason there are tens of thousands of denominations of christianity - they can't agree on what is scripture, what translations are valid, what interpretations are valid, what rituals are valid, what the role of scripture vs. tradition should be...

Terry Eagleton described one of New Atheism's high priests (Dawkins) as theologically illiterate. It effectively means you don't have the first notion of how you should approach the Bible in order to critique it.

LOL
You need a degree in theology to be able to criticise it? Is god's message only for an elite or a chosen people? Why would a god create humans who can never achieve salvation? (including atheists - surely an all-powerful god could convince anyone.) So clearly this god is quite happy to condemn a sizeable chunk of humanity to this supposedly eternal torture, for no real fault of their own except to never have heard the message, or heard the 'wrong' one, or never been convinced by it.

You're claiming not, but don't appear to be able to show your work, as it were. How worthless is that: I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

There must be an awful lot of old fools running every religion in the world then. I think they're far from fools though as religion gives them great status, power, and wealth.

It's not up to atheists to prove anything. Give us evidence and we will evaluate it. Until credible evidence is presented, then the existence of a god cannot be accepted by atheists any more than the existence of any other fantastical claim.

I'd have guessed as much by your style of argumentation.

Can you stick to discussing the posts rather than the poster. Ta.

N.B. If it wasn't clear from the previous post, I haven't read that book yet.

robindch · 11-07-2015 2:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

*cough*

Brian Shanahan · 11-07-2015 6:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

Wrong, belief in gods is a construct of the social nature of humanity, specifically the needs to tell stories explaining the world and to create in- and out-groups. Humanity's social nature is a construct of evolution. Ergo, it is safe to say that your belief in god is a result of your evolutionary past.

antiskeptic · 11-07-2015 6:38pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do the majority of religious believers actually believe they have heard god speaking to them? Doubtful.

I couldn't say.

Now if you want to employ the 'it's a metaphor' argument, how far do you go with that?

Not as far as you.

Is the very idea of a god a metaphor for a higher power within ourselves, as some believe? How do you or anyone else decide what is literally true in the bible, what is metaphor, and what can safely be ignored entirely e.g. most people won't stone their neighbour to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath or wearing mixed fibres.

You're exhibiting the fact that you've no idea at all about the structure of the Bible. Here, for example, you pick on laws applicable for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason and suppose them commandments for all people at all times. I made the point about theological illiteracy...

You need a degree in theology to be able to criticise it?

Not at all. But you do need a enough humility to suppose the most crass view of it is perhaps a poor starting point. That Dawkins/Hitchens don't raise their game about this level doesn't mean everyone else need follow suit. Unfortunately, they do, in droves.

Is god's message only for an elite or a chosen people?

God's message is for all. But unlike books of men, it requires eye's opened in order to be able to discern that message. Eye's can be opened by reading or might be opened otherwise, after which you can read and discern. The opportunity for eyes to be opened is open to all.

Why would a god create humans who can never achieve salvation?

There is no one to whom the opportunity of salvation is closed: not atheists, not Hindus, not cultural Christians. Not folk of any time or place. If they are saved it will be by God on the terms/in the manner he has deemed suitable for the purpose - not in the manner folk would demand ("I am God" in big letters across the sky, for instance).

I don't suppose that anyone should object to how they are convinced so long as they be convincingly convinced to their satisfaction.

It's not up to atheists to prove anything.

It is if they say things like God doesn't exist. That's a truth claim.

Give us evidence and we will evaluate it. Until credible evidence is presented, then the existence of a god cannot be accepted by atheists any more than the existence of any other fantastical claim.

The only person who can demonstrate God to you is God.

Religious obsessed by Atheism

Comments