New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is being a deist any more reasonable than being a theist? I don't particularly get this myself. I think it's absolutely non-sensical to think that God would create the world, and then pop off without having any real involvement with it.

Yeah that would be weird. Far more reasonable that God would create the universe and then treat it as a sort of baffling and nightmarish ant farm where he obtusely reveals mutually contradictory demands in such a way that it looks exactly as if human beings were making stuff up, and then dishes out eternal punishment or reward based upon a person's geographical location and social status upon birth, because frankly they are the biggest signifiers for following a religion.

/sarcasm

Assuming the existence of God at all is non-sensical. The reason Deism is more reasonable is that it make none of the litany of assumptions and insanities of popular forms of Theism: prayer, miracles, revelation, messiahs etc.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Then why are you facinated by us? Deep down, somewherein with you, there is a side of you that questions the very logic you follow(and with good reason )

The problem is I can also question the other side also. Some people seem to think that the only questioning is of religious belief, but actually questioning atheism and agnosticism is also possible.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The problem is I can also question the other side also. Some people seem to think that the only questioning is of religious belief, but actually questioning atheism and agnosticism is also possible.

Actually I doubt there isn't a single day that goes by where an atheist/agnostic doesn't question their meaning and interpretation of life.:)

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Perhaps when you concede points he will too.

Surely points should be conceded if they are shown to be wrong and not in return for other people conceding points?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Surely points should be conceded if they are shown to be wrong and not in return for other people conceding points?

That's the issue. Neither side has been shown to be in the wrong absolutely. Whenever I have made a mistake, I have admitted so, and I am quite willing to admit so.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

The problem is I can also question the other side also. Some people seem to think that the only questioning is of religious belief, but actually questioning atheism and agnosticism is also possible.

Ya? Try it some day.

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Assuming the existence of God at all is non-sensical. The reason Deism is more reasonable is that it make none of the litany of assumptions and insanities of popular forms of Theism: prayer, miracles, revelation, messiahs etc.

True. Once you get into things like trying to come up with reasons why it's more reasonable to think that a guy raised from the dead than the writers were lying/deluded/mistaken/coerced/exaggerating and especially when you only make these excuses for one of the thousand of old holy books, coincidentally almost always the one your parents believe in, you leave rationality well behind.

philologos

What is rationality?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ya? Try it some day.

Do you honestly think I didn't think about my faith before adopting it?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That's the issue. Neither side has been shown to be in the wrong absolutely. Whenever I have made a mistake, I have admitted so, and I am quite willing to admit so.

No neither side can be shown to be absolutely wrong until the existence of the Christian God is either proven or disproven but many smaller arguments within the larger debate have been shown to be wrong and from our perspective your usual response to such arguments is redirection/ignoring/obfuscation/excuses to avoid answering. You might not think that is the case but that is the perception on this side of the fence and it's not something we think about all believers, it's something that's uniquely Jakkass.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No neither side can be shown to be absolutely wrong until the existence of the Christian God is either proven or disproven but many smaller arguments within the larger debate have been shown to be wrong and from our perspective your usual response to such arguments is redirection/ignoring/obfuscation/excuses to avoid answering. You might not think that is the case but that is the perception on this side of the fence and it's not something we think about all believers, it's something that's uniquely Jakkass.

This is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! Hurín has actually managed to explain a number of your objections rather clearly.

1. Ignoring - I can't get around to every point. There are a lot of you, and one of me.

2. Redirection - Again, I think I deal with posts as comprehensively as I can.

3. Obfuscation - As for being bewildered or confused at some of your points. This can happen in any discussion.

4. Excuses - Nonsense. When you try to goad me into discussing about Islam when I tell you clearly that it should be discussed with a Muslim present. I have told you this clearly. Taking things off topic, is also a reasonable objection. Generally when I post, I actually want to deal with the subject at hand.

Again, there is nothing that you have "disproven" concerning Christianity on this forum. If you think you have, I can quite rightfully understand how that is frustrating but that is your issue and not mine.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

What is rationality?



Do you honestly think I didn't think about my faith before adopting it?

Nope I sure you did think about it. You may have misunderstood question (which is very telling). I was suggesting that you might question atheism/agnosticism sometime.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Nope I sure you did think about it. You may have misunderstood question (which is very telling). I was suggesting that you might question atheism/agnosticism sometime.

Haven't I? I apologise for misinterpreting your post, it's very hard to read between the lines though in all due fairness.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

What is rationality?

Rationality is looking at something objectively instead of making excuses for something because you want it to be true. If you look at the bible objectively the most reasonable objective conclusion is that it is just one more unsubstantiated tale of supernatural events from ancient times and its claims should be dismissed the same way you dismiss the claims of all the other similar stories

Nowadays people who say that God brought hurricanes to punish cities for allowing immoral behaviour are dismissed as crackpots (there are many and presumably there were more in ancient times) but if you accept as true very similar claims from thousands of years ago with no supporting evidence other than the slight possibility that a city of that name may have existed, you expect that belief to be respected and considered rational. Sorry mate but it's not. You believe it because you want to, not because you can rationally determine it to be true

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! Hurín has actually managed to explain a number of your objections rather clearly.

1. Ignoring - I can't get around to every point. There are a lot of you, and one of me.

2. Redirection - Again, I think I deal with posts as comprehensively as I can.

3. Obfuscation - As for being bewildered or confused at some of your points. This can happen in any discussion.

4. Excuses - Nonsense. When you try to goad me into discussing about Islam when I tell you clearly that it should be discussed with a Muslim present. I have told you this clearly. Taking things off topic, is also a reasonable objection. Generally when I post, I actually want to deal with the subject at hand.

Again, there is nothing that you have "disproven" concerning Christianity on this forum. If you think you have, I can quite rightfully understand how that is frustrating but that is your issue and not mine.

Right so

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Rationality is looking at something objectively instead of making excuses for something because you want it to be true. If you look at the bible objectively the most reasonable objective conclusion is that it is just one more unsubstantiated tale of supernatural events from ancient times and its claims should be dismissed the same way you dismiss the claims of all the other similar stories

You make it seem as if it is something particular to faith and belief. I would also assert that you should look at your own atheism objectively and see if you aren't making excuses for it. Again, if one is to truly look at something objectively this is what is required of you.

As for dismissing all the claims of similar stories, I don't particularly dismiss them, it's that via recursive checking, I found that Christianity rung true for me in my life. I therefore didn't find it necessary for me to continue going through every single world faith to prove that it is false. Likewise you don't attempt to do this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nowadays people who say that God brought hurricanes to punish cities for allowing immoral behaviour are dismissed as crackpots (there are many and presumably there were more in ancient times) but if you accept as true very similar claims from thousands of years ago with no supporting evidence other than the slight possibility that a city of that name may have existed, you expect that belief to be respected and considered rational. Sorry mate but it's not. You believe it because you want to, not because you can rationally determine it to be true

Who are you arguing with here? Yourself or with me? Just curious.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Haven't I?...

No not really you just argue with a Christian agenda but you never talk about illogic surrounding the god you believe in, at least I haven't experienced it you just push the validity of Christianity jumping over the assumption that at its core Christianity's god make sense when in fact it makes very little.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...Christianity rung true for me in my life...

So what are you doing here?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah that would be weird. Far more reasonable that God would create the universe and then treat it as a sort of baffling and nightmarish ant farm where he obtusely reveals mutually contradictory demands in such a way that it looks exactly as if human beings were making stuff up, and then dishes out eternal punishment or reward based upon a person's geographical location and social status upon birth, because frankly they are the biggest signifiers for following a religion.

That is sig worthy!

zillah wrote:

/sarcasm

Assuming the existence of God at all is non-sensical. The reason Deism is more reasonable is that it make none of the litany of assumptions and insanities of popular forms of Theism: prayer, miracles, revelation, messiahs etc.

I had never ear-marked you as being elegant but that was particularly well put.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No not really you just argue with a Christian agenda but you never talk about illogic surrounding the god you believe in, at least I haven't experienced it you just push the validity of Christianity jumping over the assumption that at its core Christianity's god make sense when in fact it makes very little.

So you want me to list all the difficulties I had with Christianity when I was first coming to it?

I don't push anything, I express my disagreement with your point of view. I thought that was entitled. If you want to just sit here and agree with each other all day long, that's fine. If that is really what you want, I will respect what you have said and confine myself to the Christianity section.

Dades

Nobody need confine themselves to any forum. All views welcome here, company line or not.

Turtwig

Ok admittingly I'm a totally newbie here, but I don't see why everyone is haranguing Jakkass faith. S/He is one of the few that is willing to openly discuss it shouldn't that count for something?

I know many Christians who will say 'but you're an atheist' and use it as a basis for both disagreeing with me and stopping short of ignoring me, at least Jakkass listens(reads?) . Surely that counts for something?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

So you want me to list all the difficulties I had with Christianity when I was first coming to it?

No. I want to know whether you think the god part not the christianity part makes any sense. If in your reply to this post you mention christianity then I'll unfortunately have to take it that your not prepared for that kind of conversation. All you seem to do here is defend Christianity but speaking for myself Christianity is just one layer of falsehood on top of another i.e. god. Once you assume god you can make anything about your religion sound almost acceptable.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You make it seem as if it is something particular to faith and belief.

It's not. It's a very common glitch in human reasoning and it applies to many aspects of life. It's equally irrational in all.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would also assert that you should look at your own atheism objectively and see if you aren't making excuses for it. Again, if one is to truly look at something objectively this is what is required of you.

I am looking at it objectively. Lying is always more likely than a guy raising from the dead and I see no reason to make an exception to that rule for one and only one of thousands of old books of similar stories. If there was actual physical evidence of it having happened that would be a different story but there isn't. At most there is evidence that the guy himself existed and stories were written about him, just like the rest of these books.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for dismissing all the claims of similar stories, I don't particularly dismiss them, it's that via recursive checking, I found that Christianity rung true for me in my life. I therefore didn't find it necessary for me to continue going through every single world faith to prove that it is false. Likewise you don't attempt to do this.

What rings true for you, what fits nicely into your brain and maybe matches your world view is entirely irrelevant. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean its true, lots of things that aren't intuitive are true nonetheless and vice versa

Jakkass wrote: »

Who are you arguing with here? Yourself or with me? Just curious.

I'm arguing with you. You expect a belief to be considered rational when you're believing something for which there is no evidence other than a slight possibility of the city having existed and for which people are nowadays dismissed as crackpots. The objective, rational explanation is that it was the ancient version of one of these crackpots who made that claim and people weren't knowledgeable or confident enough at the time to tell him he was a crackpot and so it was written down and taken as true. Believing such claims is simply not rational.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No. I want to know whether you think the god part not the christianity part makes any sense. If in your reply to this post you mention christianity then I'll unfortunately have to take it that your not prepared for that kind of conversation. All you seem to do here is defend Christianity but speaking for myself Christianity is just one layer of falsehood on top of another i.e. god. Once you assume god you can make anything about your religion sound almost acceptable.

I think we have to begin in assessing whether or not God makes sense before we can look to the finer claims of Christianity. I have attempted to do this before on this forum, but it was met with harsh criticism. Most Christian writers who deal with the issue such as C.S Lewis in his books Mere Christianity and Miracles deal with the rationality of believing in a God first before dealing with the finer details of that God.

As for not being prepared for that kind of conversation, it's not that I amn't prepared. It's that most people here seemed to get rather frustrated when it has been discussed here in the past. I sometimes wonder if it is worth discussing again.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think we have to begin in assessing whether or not God makes sense before we can look to the finer claims of Christianity. I have attempted to do this before on this forum, but it was met with harsh criticism. Most Christian writers who deal with the issue such as C.S Lewis in his books Mere Christianity and Miracles deal with the rationality of believing in a God first before dealing with the finer details of that God.

As for not being prepared for that kind of conversation, it's not that I amn't prepared. It's that most people here seemed to get rather frustrated when it has been discussed here in the past. I sometimes wonder if it is worth discussing again.

Question answered.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not. It's a very common glitch in human reasoning and it applies to many aspects of life. It's equally irrational in all.

Right.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am looking at it objectively. Lying is always more likely than a guy raising from the dead and I see no reason to make an exception to that rule for one and only one of thousands of old books of similar stories. If there was actual physical evidence of it having happened that would be a different story but there isn't. At most there is evidence that the guy himself existed and stories were written about him, just like the rest of these books.

I'm not entirely sure you are. We both have preconceptions that we bring to the table before discussing. It's inevitable. Neither of us have an objective view of this argument. It's absurd to suggest that you do. You're clearly biased towards your point of view, and I'm biased towards mine. That's the reality of it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What rings true for you, what fits nicely into your brain and maybe matches your world view is entirely irrelevant. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean its true, lots of things that aren't intuitive are true nonetheless and vice versa

You mean, what is logical to me? Isn't that the justification for your atheism, it's logical to you.

I realise that it doesn't mean it is true. I sometimes wonder do you think this about your own point of view.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm arguing with you. You expect a belief to be considered rational when you're believing something for which there is no evidence other than a slight possibility of the city having existed and for which people are nowadays dismissed as crackpots. The objective, rational explanation is that it was the ancient version of one of these crackpots who made that claim and people weren't knowledgeable or confident enough at the time to tell him he was a crackpot and so it was written down and taken as true. Believing such claims is simply not rational.

Yes, but it seems that you have brought in a point that I never discussed into the conversation, and you have begun to discuss it with yourself. That's why I am puzzled.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure you are. We both have preconceptions that we bring to the table before discussing. It's inevitable. Neither of us have an objective view of this argument. It's absurd to suggest that you do. You're clearly biased towards your point of view, and I'm biased towards mine. That's the reality of it.

The thing is that my preconceptions come from the laws of nature and the knowledge that humans make up sh!t like this all the time. Your preconceptions are exactly the same as mine because we both know that dodgy claims are made all the time and we both know that nature follows certain rules, but you make an exception for one guy 2000 years ago with no evidence bar the unsubstantiated claims of one of thousands of old books. I see no reason to make such an exception

Jakkass wrote: »

You mean, what is logical to me? Isn't that the justification for your atheism, it's logical to you.

Nope, the knowledge that the universe follows certain laws and that it would take come damn compelling evidence to convince me that one of thousands of claims of these laws being broken is true (but all the others aren't) is the justification for my atheism

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it seems that you have brought in a point that I never discussed into the conversation, and you have begun to discuss it with yourself. That's why I am puzzled.

You were talking about the rationality behind Christianity so I mentioned some of the claims of Christianity that you include in your seven reasons for belief.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that my preconceptions come from the laws of nature and the knowledge that humans make up sh!t like this all the time. Your preconceptions are exactly the same as mine because we both know that dodgy claims are made all the time and we both know that nature follows certain rules, but you make an exception for one guy 2000 years ago with no evidence bar the unsubstantiated claims of one of thousands of old books. I see no reason to make such an exception

I'm really not so sure that my preconceptions are the same as yours. I mean, if they were I would expect the discussion to go a lot smoother.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nope, the knowledge that the universe follows certain laws and that it would take come damn compelling evidence to convince me that one of thousands of claims of these laws being broken is true (but all the others aren't) is the justification for my atheism

We are in agreement that the universe is under certain scientific laws. We are not in agreement over the authorship of those scientific laws. This is perhaps the reason why we get stuck on discussions such as these. I am curious about the cause for why this earth or these laws exist in the first place, you aren't as much. Perhaps that's an inaccurate assessment that you need to call me out on. Feel free.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You were talking about the rationality behind Christianity so I mentioned some of the claims of Christianity that you include in your seven reasons for belief.

Interesting, but it might be more prudent to focus on this discussion instead of invoking previous discussion into this one. Again it has to do with keeping on one line of discussion rather than on several. You understand how that could be confusing right?

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is being a deist any more reasonable than being a theist? I don't particularly get this myself.

because a Deist says "God exists.... now lets ignore that fact and live our lives like he doesn't"

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's absolutely non-sensical to think that God would create the world, and then pop off without having any real involvement with it.

Why? What do you know of the nature and intents of a being capable of creating Universes that you haven't gleaned from a subjective piece of literature written by humans a few millenniums ago. To claim anything is sensible or nonsensical in regards to a Deity first requires the nonsensical leap of faith that a piece of writing about such a Deity was inspired by it. You are starting from a position of Theism, and judging Deism by this biased understanding.

Jakkass wrote: »

You know that there is only one of me, and many of you.

How about this. Don't reiterate arguments you've used before and instead only tackle the questions you have yet to voice an opinion on. I'm pretty sure this will dramatically reduce how much you have to reply to.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have conceded that it an adult made up a story to tell a child to obey a series of rules it would be dishonest, because it was contrived. I believe the Gospel to be true, hence why I don't see it as dishonest or contrived

In a secular society which doesn't believe any one religion is correct would you agree that the subjective teaching of torture, sin, punishment and invisible evil beings as true to children should be defined as abuse.

Also it is worth noting this quote (the exact wording escapes me):

All that is needed for a lie to become the truth is for a charlatan to meet a fool

Húrin wrote: »

All humans use reason only up to a point. I have seen no evidence that atheists as a group are endowed with any more reason than theists as a group.

Precisely. Thank you Húrin, so you agree with me. Theism is unreasonable in it's assumptions about the nature of God and his commands. I'm glad we where able to come to a consensus.

Húrin wrote: »

Why use an arbitrary yardstick like this?

My main bone of contention with religion is its relevance to this Universe and human existence. What people wish to imagine happens outside of this Universe or before it came into existence is their own business. As long as they don't try and claim their ham fisted assumptions should have any bearing on how we view this world, how we should live and what fears should be drilled into children as soon as possible.

Húrin wrote: »

Does that mean that art institutions are inextricably anti-science?

No but Art accepts its subjectivity, Religion does not, it expects to be viewed as an objective truth bestowed upon us by a God.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

because a Deist says "God exists.... now lets ignore that fact and live our lives like he doesn't"

So ignoring reality is a good thing to you?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why? What do you know of the nature and intents of a being capable of creating Universes that you haven't gleaned from a subjective piece of literature written by humans a few millenniums ago. To claim anything is sensible or nonsensical in regards to a Deity first requires the nonsensical leap of faith that a piece of writing about such a Deity was inspired by it. You are starting from a position of Theism, and judging Deism by this biased understanding.

This is entirely dependant on whether or not you think that God would have any interest in His creation. If you don't you will most likely dismiss the concept of divine revelation. If you do think that God would have an interest in the world, you would also think that God would care about His creation, and care about their welfare enough to give moral guidance.

So if one assumes that God wouldn't care about His creation, one will also assume that divine revelation is ridiculous. If one thinks that God would care about His creation, divine revelation isn't so outlandish.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How about this. Don't reiterate arguments you've used before and instead only tackle the questions you have yet to voice an opinion on. I'm pretty sure this will dramatically reduce how much you have to reply to.

So, you are encouraging me to ignore more posts than I am accused of already ignoring :pac:

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

In a secular society which doesn't believe any one religion is correct would you agree that the subjective teaching of torture, sin, punishment and invisible evil beings as true to children should be defined as abuse.

Secularism stops at church - state separation for me. Religion is important to me, I am predominately not a secular person. I recognise for the sake of accomodating all religions within a pluralism it is required at a State level, but apart from that we can lead our lives with as much respect to a faith as we wish.

It isn't the business of legislators to separate religion from people. If it becomes like that, we will have moved from church - state separation to state atheism.

I don't agree that it is child abuse to teach anyone about faith or to share their faith in public.

With ideas like this, people wonder why I am skeptical about how people abuse the idea of secularism for their own personal goals.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also it is worth noting this quote (the exact wording escapes me):

All that is needed for a lie to become the truth is for a charlatan to meet a fool

This is based on the assumption that Christianity is a lie. I cannot make that assumption, for obvious reasons.