When atheists go too far

bastados

dpe wrote: »

Are you channeling Eric Cantona? You seem to have knack for the Non Sequitur. Or is this some kind of performance art piece? Maybe's its my lack of imagination, but I can't work out what the feck you're on about.

Sweeping grande gestures do that to me..thank Seachmall for his lesson in histrionics.

Turtwig

bastados wrote: »

Yeah you're talking about facts...I'm talking about truth's ,there's a difference between observable fact and subjective truth...class is over.

I'm not talking about facts. A fact is a human concept. What reality is, reality is; there's nothing subjective about that.

smash

bastados wrote: »

you could with a visit to the art gallery too :D:D

You have no clue about the people your talking to or what they do in their spare time. Don't assume we're all uneducated and uninteresting.

Seachmall

WhiteRussian wrote: »

It could be weak theism too though

True, although it's rare as most feel they know God's existence to be true either through personal experience or poor reasoning.

My uncle, I think, would be considered a weak theist. He's a man of science but holds personal beliefs. I've never met any other that would classify themselves as a weak theist.

Thomas Gardner has an essay called "Proofs of God" that explains the position quite well.

bastados

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not talking about facts. A fact is a human concept.

as opposed to non-human concepts

really?

bastados

steve06 wrote: »

You have no clue about the people your talking to or what they do in their spare time. Don't assume we're all uneducated and uninteresting.

in all sincerity , no offense meant

dpe

Seachmall wrote: »

My uncle, I think, would be considered a weak theist. He's a man of science but holds personal beliefs. I've never met any other that would classify themselves as a weak theist.

Its not that unusual. I kind regard this as my back-up position;

1. Position 1. Don't believe God exists
2. Position 2. Even if he did I wouldn't worship him because he's a nutter.

I'd definitely say position 2 could be catagorised as weak theism. I think there are lots of people who think there's a creator but its not the Jewish Air God.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

My uncle, I think, would be considered a weak theist. He's a man of science but holds personal beliefs. I've never met any other that would classify themselves as a weak theist.

I think it also needs to be pointed out that one can be "a man of science" and still fully believe in Christianity or other forms of religion.

steve06 wrote: »

You have no clue about the people your talking to or what they do in their spare time. Don't assume we're all uneducated and uninteresting.

Good point, and it may be worth keeping that in mind on the other side of the argument.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

I think it also needs to be pointed out that one can be "a man of science" and still fully believe in Christianity or other forms of religion.

Compartmentalise.

Mark200

Guys, just found an article that explains a lot of the confusion over religious beliefs:

God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder

NEW HAVEN, CT–In a diagnosis that helps explain the confusing and contradictory aspects of the cosmos that have baffled philosophers, theologians, and other students of the human condition for millennia, God, creator of the universe and longtime deity to billions of followers, was found Monday to suffer from bipolar disorder.

Rev. Dr. J. Henry Jurgens, a practicing psychiatrist and doctor of divinity at Yale University Divinity School, announced the historic diagnosis at a press conference.

"I always knew there had to be some explanation," Jurgens said. "And, after several years of patient research and long sessions with God Almighty through the intercessionary medium of prayer, I was able to pinpoint the specific nature of His problem."

More: http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-diagnosed-with-bipolar-disorder,348/

unbeat

/ thread
/thread

please god please

Ellis Dee

I was just watching a documentary on TV about the supposed scale of the universe. More stars than there are grains of sand on every beach and in every desert in the world would be a big number, but doesn't even come close.

And yet there are still those who believe that all of this was created by a mystical being, who knows everything and has unlimited power and watches every second in the existence of every living creature (and inanimate object as well, for that matter).

And all so that we (humans) could live our lives on this planet and have to do our very best not to displease the sky fairy or we'll all end up in a hot an uncomfortable place for an infinite length of time.

Given the enormity of the universe, doesn't it seem - literally - a huge waste of space?:rolleyes:

philologos

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I was just watching a documentary on TV about the supposed scale of the universe. More stars than there are grains of sand on every beach and in every desert in the world would be a big number, but doesn't even come close.

And yet there are still those who believe that all of this was created by a mystical being, who knows everything and has unlimited power and watches every second in the existence of every living creature (and inanimate object as well, for that matter).

And all so that we (humans) could live our lives on this planet and have to do our very best not to displease the sky fairy or we'll all end up in a hot an uncomfortable place for an infinite length of time.

Given the enormity of the universe, doesn't it seem - literally - a huge waste of space?:rolleyes:

How is this an argument against God's existence? Also who said that this universe was just for us?

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

How is this an argument against God's existence? Also who said that this universe was just for us?

Surely the bible implies that we are special. Being made in gods image, him sending his son down to get slaughtered so that he can bring more people to heaven etc.

The sheer size of the universe is one of the best arguments against modern religions. That out of the 100s of billions of galaxies, god would pick our galaxy, and out of the 100s of billions of stars in our galaxy he'd pick our star, and out of the many planets around our star he'd pick our planet and punish a man for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

Unless you believe that there are going to be other species from other planets joining you in heaven?

Antikythera

philologos wrote: »

I think it also needs to be pointed out that one can be "a man of science" and still fully believe in Christianity or other forms of religion.

Like L. Ron Hubbard.

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

Surely the bible implies that we are special. Being made in gods image, him sending his son down to get slaughtered so that he can bring more people to heaven etc.

The Bible is written in reference to humankind in human terms. It doesn't mean that God created the world just for us.

Mark200 wrote: »

The sheer size of the universe is one of the best arguments against modern religions. That out of the 100s of billions of galaxies, god would pick our galaxy, and out of the 100s of billions of stars in our galaxy he'd pick our star, and out of the many planets around our star he'd pick our planet and punish a man for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

I've heard this one before, but it really doesn't tell me anything apart from how great God is to have created such a majestic universe. Not only that, but that He can care for us. Hence why David wrote in the Psalms:

Psalm 8:4 wrote:

what is mankind that you [referring to God] are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

It's a woeful argument. Yet it is one that non-believers keep posing to me.

Mark200 wrote: »

Unless you believe that there are going to be other species from other planets joining you in heaven?

I don't rule out that there are other species and I don't rule out that God may have revealed Himself to them.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

I've heard this one before, but it really doesn't tell me anything apart from how great God is to have created such a majestic universe. Not only that, but that He can care for us.

Of course it doesn't. No matter what evidence you present to a religious person, they only see it as a reinforcement of their own beliefs.

philologos wrote: »

I don't rule out that there are other species and I don't rule out that God may have revealed Himself to them.

Well what do you believe?

Unfortunately I don't think my dog is a Christian. She never prays, she is always having fun on the Sabbath and she's always lusting after others. It's as if she's not concerned at all with the prospect of hell.

WoollyRedHat

Every time I see this thread I constantly read it as
"when athletes go too far"

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

How is this an argument against God's existence? Also who said that this universe was just for us?

There is no need for arguments against your imaginary being's existence. The onus is on you and your fellow-believers to provide proof of said existence, something that you have never done and could never do.:rolleyes:

I don't know whether anyone has ever claimed that the universe was just for us, by which I take it you mean humans, but doesn't it say somewhere in your book of fairytales that your god created man in his own image? Accordingly, if the universe contains other beings that are on or above the level of intelligence of humans (and there could be billions of such species for all we know), were they all created in god's image as well? Given the sheer diversity of species on this planet alone, everything from a bacterium to a whale, isn't it a bit of a stretch to think the whole universe is populated with the likes of us?:):):)

Ellis Dee

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Every time I see this thread I constantly read it as
"when athletes go too far"

Reminds me of the old joke about the dyslexic agnostic who suffers from insomnia.

He lies awake nights wondering if there is a dog.

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. No matter what evidence you present to a religious person, they only see it as a reinforcement of their own beliefs.

There is no evidence against God's existence. Why does a large universe refute God's existence? The argument is simply awful to any objective observer.

Mark200 wrote: »

Well what do you believe?

I don't know if there are other intelligent species in the universe.

Mark200 wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think my dog is a Christian. She never prays, she is always having fun on the Sabbath and she's always lusting after others. It's as if she's not concerned at all with the prospect of hell.

Dogs are a different species than humans. I would presume that God has different expectations for humans than animals due to our intelligence and reasoning faculties. Hence why I've emphasised that the Bible refers to humankind which is pretty obvious from reading it.

philologos

Ellis Dee wrote: »

There is no need for arguments against your imaginary being's existence. The onus is on you and your fellow-believers to provide proof of said existence, something that you have never done and could never do.:rolleyes:

You need to have basis for claiming that God is imaginary though. It seems like this is just useless rhetoric though.

As for proof. I've explained clearly that one can't demonstrably prove anything outside of mathematics. It's a useless way to deal with this discussion.

Rather we should be more concerned with probability and why we believe that God is more likely than not. More fruitful, more constructive and overall better.

I don't enter into childish "just prove it" arguments because they clearly misunderstand the nature of the God debate.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I don't know whether anyone has ever claimed that the universe was just for us, by which I take it you mean humans, but doesn't it say somewhere in your book of fairytales that your god created man in his own image? Accordingly, if the universe contains other beings that are on or above the level of intelligence of humans (and there could be billions of such species for all we know), were they all created in god's image as well? Given the sheer diversity of species on this planet alone, everything from a bacterium to a whale, isn't it a bit of a stretch to think the whole universe is populated with the likes of us?:):):)

I don't see how this is a difficulty. Actually I believe you've misunderstood Genesis.

The word for image in Biblical Hebrew is tselem. It means reflection, likeness, image. It doesn't refer to appearance in most Jewish or Christian understandings. Rather it shows purpose and intentionality. We were born to live in God's likeness, to live according to His purposes and to reflect His glory. We've failed to do this, we shattered the reflection through deciding to reflect ourselves instead. God has given us a means to restore it through His Son Jesus in a Christian sense. In the Jewish sense they are waiting for the Messiah.

As for other species I've said I'm open to it and I don't know. It is interesting but it poses no inherent contradiction because the Bible is God's word to humankind.

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

You need to have basis for claiming that God is imaginary though. It seems like this is just useless rhetoric though.

As for proof. I've explained clearly that one can't demonstrably prove anything outside of mathematics. It's a useless way to deal with this discussion.

Rather we should be more concerned with probability and why we believe that God is more likely than not. More fruitful, more constructive and overall better.

I don't enter into childish "just prove it" arguments because they clearly misunderstand the nature of the God debate.



I don't see how this is a difficulty. Actually I believe you've misunderstood Genesis.

The word for image in Biblical Hebrew is tselem. It means reflection, likeness, image. It doesn't refer to appearance in most Jewish or Christian understandings. Rather it shows purpose and intentionality. We were born to live in God's likeness, to live according to His purposes and to reflect His glory. We've failed to do this, we shattered the reflection through deciding to reflect ourselves instead. God has given us a means to restore it through His Son Jesus in a Christian sense. In the Jewish sense they are waiting for the Messiah.

As for other species I've said I'm open to it and I don't know. It is interesting but it poses no inherent contradiction because the Bible is God's word to humankind.

They were grand in Peter Gabriels day but got a bit ****tty when Phil Collins stepped out from behind the drums.

dpe

philologos wrote: »

Dogs are a different species than humans. I would presume that God has different expectations for humans than animals due to our intelligence and reasoning faculties. Hence why I've emphasised that the Bible refers to humankind which is pretty obvious from reading it.

Interesting. Define "Human". Since in evolutionary terms we're a work in progress (well, actually we aren't, since progress implies a direction, but you take my point), at what point did our "intelligence and reasoning faculties" become sufficiently developed for God to have different expectations of us compared to Dogs (or cats, or dolphins)? Because the Bible seems remarkably deficient on the 100-200K years we know humans have been capable of reason (not a lot of mention of the Ice Age for instance), so what, God was waiting to see whether we were worth the effort before revealing himself? I don't think so, and Occam's razor suggests a rather different explanation.

philologos

^^ Yet William of Ockham as a committed Christian would be writhing in his grave at that use of Ockham's Razor :pac:

I don't see how atheism is any "simpler" anyway.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

You need to have basis for claiming that God is imaginary though. It seems like this is just useless rhetoric though.

That's like saying, you need to have basis for claiming my invisible leprechaun friend who follows me around is imaginary. Yet if I claimed his existence, people would think me slightly mentally deficient. Why? Because I have no proof or evidence of his existence. Yet the idea is equally plausible to yours. In a way it's actually more probable.

And more importantly , you won't even entertain my nonsensical ramblings of an invisible leprechaun friend! Why not? Ask yourself that. Is it lack of proof?

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

That's like saying, you need to have basis for claiming my invisible leprechaun friend who follows me around is imaginary. Yet if I claimed his existence, people would think me slightly mentally deficient. Why? Because I have no proof or evidence of his existence. Yet the idea is equally plausible to yours. In a way it's actually more probable.

And more importantly , you won't even entertain my nonsensical ramblings of an invisible leprechaun friend! Why not? Ask yourself that. Is it lack of proof?

It's not comparable at all. One is a result out of a rational desire to make sense of the origins of the universe, the other isn't. No matter how many times an atheist is told this they continue making the ridiculous leprachaun, Santa analogies, most of which I can gladly healthily ignore precisely for this reason!

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

It's not comparable at all. One is a result out of a rational desire to make sense of the origins of the universe, the other isn't. No matter how many times an atheist is told this they continue making the ridiculous leprachaun, Santa analogies, most of which I can gladly healthily ignore precisely for this reason!

So if he believes the leprauchan caused the origins of the universe, you would need to disprove that.

But if he just thinks the leprauchan follows him around, he needs to prove that to you.

Nice one, Jakkass.:D

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

It's not comparable at all. One is a result out of a rational desire to make sense of the origins of the universe, the other isn't. No matter how many times an atheist is told this they continue making the ridiculous leprachaun, Santa analogies, most of which I can gladly healthily ignore precisely for this reason!

Fine, my invisible leprechaun also invented the universe. There.

philologos: I've a simple question, I'd be interested in your response. (It's completely hypothetical, but interesting nonetheless.)

What if research in the fields of abiogenesis and emergence progressed to such a degree that in, say, a couple of years scientists created life, by completely natural processes, in the laboratory? The conditions used in their experiments would also mirror the conditions of an early Earth, the implication being that life could have come about on Earth via natural mechanisms and processes.

Would such a discovery cause you to question your beliefs? Would it even cause concern?