Questions why we are born and why we will die have no menaings at all.
Printable View
Questions why we are born and why we will die have no menaings at all.
One of the basic problems in the attempt at a dialogue between non-believers and believers is the issue of evidence. Quotes from the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or what-have-you can not be persuasive as such to those who do not believe, since they lack authority for those who have not accepted them.
While I will not attempt to speak for Jozanny, it would be understandable for someone to be frustrated and irritated to hear chapter and verse quoted when it is perfectly clear to both parties that without the establishment of authority the quotes are mere words.
A more interesting exercise would be to attempt to show how acceptance of a belief system (be it atheism, agnosticism, ethical monotheism, pantheism, or worshipping the big rock in one's backyard) leads to a solution of certain problems in one's own life.
Yet wouldn't the identifying of a "problem in one's own life", identifying a (presumably) positive solution and evaluating a belief system on how well it responds to such a test be expressions of a belief system rather than anything approaching objective examination of one?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I recognize how having "chapter and verse" quoted does not bolster a truth-claim if one doesn't accept the authority of the source of said quotes. Yet, as a Christian, I believe (and am convinced that the Bible teaches) that both the truth-claims and the source (the Bible) are self-authenticating--they have the inherant ability to convince people of their veracity (I can state that more strongly, but that would side-track us into the definition of "faith").
I don't think Christians or even religious people are alone in this belief, namely, the supposition that their truth-claims and the source from which they draw them are self-authenticating. It has to be that way given the fact that any belief system is so wide in the scope of its truth-claims that there cannot, by definition, remain anything external, and therefore objective, by which to evaluate them.
nicely said. however, i dont think this is limited to just religious people. this faith you speak of is basically "knowing IT in your bones." once this knowledge is felt the means, ie the book, can be disgarded--being that the book served as the stairs to get you to the top, the goal. Needing to go back down the steps (quote scripture) to justify your being at the top is redundant. as if you need proof of how you reached the topQuote:
Originally Posted by togre
Atheism is not necessarily a unified system of belief (in that it has tenents that are universally acknowledged) but it is a system of belief in that it poses a configuration of the universe that - like Christianity - cannot ultimately be proven, if followed to its logical conclusion. In that way, atheism requires just as much subjective choice (and a certain degree of faith) as any religious system of belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
The relationship between faith and works is tricky: works cannot get you into heaven; that said, your behavior still counts. Most theologians would say that a person who has faith in Christ will want to behave in a way that is consistent with his/her beliefs. The works come from the faith - not necessarily vice versa (but not impossible, either).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
They are "commands" because God wishes to be clear that these behaviors are dangerous because they will take the believer away from Him (God), and to separate from God is to head towards spiritual stagnation, and death. You are free to ignore the rules, but they exist because we need to know what kinds of things are harmful to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Here's what Wiki says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) gave explanations of the genesis of religion in his various writings. In Totem and Taboo, he applied the idea of the Oedipus complex (involving unresolved sexual feelings of, for example, a son toward his mother and hostility toward his father) and postulated its emergence in the primordial stage of human development.
In Moses and Monotheism, Freud reconstructed biblical history in accordance with his general theory. His ideas were also developed in The Future of an Illusion. When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.
Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself.
But all law has as its basis morality - hence the significance of religious moral guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Right - but Christians understand that the NT revises the OT - Christ's substitutionary death eliminates the law's condemnation of us; the OT system of "earning" salvation was eliminated in favor of the salvation brought about by grace. OT laws are not voided if they deal with morality - but obeying them without a relationship with God will not save one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
All of the Bible can be misquoted or quoted out of context. The Devil attempted to use scripture against Christ when he tempted him in the wilderness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Jesus did not see gender - he saw souls.
To an extent, change is good; but, some things ought not be alterable because of changing fads and whims. Moral law shoud be built of firmer stuff than simple majority agreement - because majorities can be wrong (cf. European/American attitudes towards Africans in the 17-19th centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
"Crutches" are bad things if you don't need them; when you do need them, they are very valuable things. I didn't say you "only" believe in God because life is difficult; what I said was that many people whose lives are in danger or unstable find their need of God to be more obvious; those of us living comfortably and with plenty of money still have a need of God (perhaps a more serious one by very nature of our belief that we're taking care of ourselves just fine, thank you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Abiogenesis (life from non-life) has not been "proved." That fact is the chief stumbling block to evolution's explanation of our origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
But regardless of what they tried to destroy, they still had as their foundation an atheistic world-view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
The advocation of male authority was only within the marriage relationship. And, it goes without saying that the man had to wield his authority in a godly way (i.e. he had to be loving his wife sacrificially); any man who isn't loving his wife sacrificially has no right to demand his wife's submission. Women are entitled to whatever authority they wish to have - and you are not required to buy into the Bible's admonishment for women to submit to husbands and husbands to love sacrificially. BUT: if the designer of men and women suggested a certain arrangement, isn't He most qualified to know what arrangement works best for His creatures? We may not like the arrangement, but we did not create the human being from the ground up (pun intended); since the Bible makes it clear that God desires to give us good things, why would He create a random arrangement that had no basis on logic or reality? I assume that God's commands are not for His own good, but for our own good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
But even that is sexist, isn't it? How do we define "suitable" tasks for female soldiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
Thank you, by the way, for this. Very charitable of you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterfly
What I really did not want to see happen was the snake chasing its tail in terms of the back and forth over belief and lack of belief. I was looking for other parameters, which I should have posted more clearly in the starter post, but did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Let me mention a few things which I do not think have been truly touched upon in the thread, or if they have, only in passing:
1. The partisan divide: This may be an increasingly troubling problem in the States, with its long tradition of post-Puritan religious plurality. An us versus them mindset may not serve us well, particular in light of the fact that the *center* in the US is increasingly drowned out through polarization. Evangelical Christianity and the secular majority butt heads as part of the culture wars which have rent the country since the 60's. In the 40's, it seems to me Americans were held together by a more civic unity which we might want to recapture, because we only have to look at the harm done in nations where intolerance between various faiths and sects leads to riots, loss of life, and civil instability.
2. Satirical intent: I am not sure how helpful it is. I am a Maher fan, but it is true that his new film probably will inflame diehards who like their red meat. There are some observers who do not mock in their social commentary, but for me the jury is out on this. The Cline fellow I cited way back some pages had a really funny post about the divine foreskin, which, as I was raised Roman Catholic, (thus those who think I don't know scripture might want to rethink that, and you know who you are) had me rolling, but I doubt it helps us all gain common ground. Although it may be that denigration is a particular American attribute; I'm not sure.
And that is two--my frustration actually stems from the business of submitting articles aspect, and for that I apologize. This forum is more playpen than the kind of writing support network I would give my right arm for. It may at times be a charming playpen, where yes, more studied betters may have assisted me in learning something--but few issues have given me decent topics to field queries so I can return to earning my living, and that is really what I'm after--bread and butter ideas.
However, by all means, let's return to the snake eating itself. There must be some reason the debate is like a perpetual motion machine.
These are good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
As to the first, I think that there is no other way to objectively determine the efficacy of religious practice than by seeing whether it in fact aids the person cope with life. My position is that the question of something as fundamental as God's existence is unprovable (as is God's non-existence). Simply put, none of the major proofs for God's existence (ontological, cosmological, teleological, experiential) succeed in leading one inescably to the conclusion that God exists. The main argument for the non-existence of God (roughly speaking, that the world's condition precludes a Being deserving of worship) can also be shown to have weak points (known technically as 'theodicies') so the situation is a draw.
As to the second point, there are a number of problems. First and foremost is the issue of persuasion versus veracity. Needless to say these two things are not identical. An appeal to the convincing power of the Scriptures does nothing to show veracity of same.
It is unclear how Scripture can be self-authenticating. I can see how, for example, presenting a living breathing black swan could be said to be self-authenticating as to the existence of black swans. Clearly you mean something different here. Please elaborate.
I will point out that the 1940s was also a time when Jim Crow still ruled the land, being discovered to be homosexual could land you in jail or worse, and being a Communist or even sympathetic to other political systems barred you from work. During the 1940s people were incarcerated for being Japanese during a war with Japan. Contraception was illegal for unmarried women in most states, as of course was reproductive freedom. In some ways the 40s were too quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I will also point out that it was the churches that were among the leaders in the abolitionist movement, and religious leaders (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) who spearheaded the civil rights movement.
George Kaufmann remarked that satire was what closed on Saturday night.
You will be waiting a very long time. As tediously explained, it isn't a belief system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I would have thought it's an un-American attribute - taking the mickey being more British. Maybe that's what's needed? The UK has a proud history of taking the mickey out of religion, from Chaucer to Father Ted, Brits have enjoyed poking fun at religion. It's only in the last few years, led by Canucks with South Park that Americans have gotten in on the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Plus, Maher's derision is well overdue after the bucket of vomit, lies and misquotes served up by Ben Stein.
I'm looking forward to it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Are you engaging me, sir? Anytime I try to engage you, you simply tell me how ignorant I am and then disconnect from the dialogue. I will give you better:
The refusal to believe in God requires some other interlocking beliefs to exist:
1. The universe exists only of material matter - that which can be measured, quantified, studied.
2. There is no spiritual component within the universe.
3. Life on earth had to begin through abiogenesis, since the absence of a deity implies that life had to begin from nothing, since all things have a beginning.
4. Morality is a human/social construct (or evolutionary development) that is plastic and flexible in nature, and almost fully dictated by majority rule, "might makes right," cultural agreement or some sort of Hobbesian social contract idea.
5. There is no existence after death. Death is simply annihilation.
That's the short list off the top of my head. Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).
Everything is a belief system.
I'd agree with these, for the most part. I might want to hair-split over the existence from "nothing," but I won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
i don't think i'd say everything is a belief system. for instance, my head sitting on my neck and not falling off is not a belief or a product of belief. it might depend on your definition of belief.
To explain this thoroughly would side track this particular conversation. If you would like me to elaborate, I would be happy to in a different thread. I will stick to a rough sketch at the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Faith/belief to a Christian is more than an intellectual thing (it doesn't exist apart from the intellect, yet it encompasses more). There is a spiritual aspect (again, this is from a Christian point of view). The spiritual aspect of faith is created by something outside the one who believes. The Bible teaches that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.
So...I trust in Jesus (specifically in the forgiveness he won through his death) because the Holy Spirit created faith where it didn't previously exist (in my heart). The Holy Spirit did this by working through a message/truth-claim that "Jesus died for you sins."
I heard this through the Bible. Why do I trust the Bible? Because I trust the God who gave it. How do I know the God in whom I trust? Through the Bible. These things are interdependent and cannot be verified (or disproved) externally. Yet on matters of such magnitude, there can be no reliable or even truly external authority.
So I guess I am admitting that on a purely logical basic Christianity is based on circular reasoning, or at least on the acceptance of certain primary truths/truth-claims.
My secondary point is that all methods of understand life/death/the world/meaning/existence have equally unsubstantiated core tenants that are accepted a priori. Why does a black swan prove that there are black swans? Because you (and I do not fault you for this) believe that matter exists and that observations are generally reliable and that a black swan is a swan of a blackish color. Does that help?
Nope, that's a belief system too. Ask the philosophers.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
philosophers, ha. isn't saying that everything is one thing, in this case-belief, make that statement meaningless. you cant test it, get outside of it to prove it.
Yeah I understand your frustration with philosophers. I'm an engineer and I work in the realm of science. But science is an enclosed system and we believe what we believe based on the assumption that it is the only system. Philosophers hold to the possiblity that it is not the only system. I don't know if that's accurate what I just wrote, but it's how I understand it. Here's more:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/Quote:
Belief
First published Mon Aug 14, 2006
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term "belief", in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The "mind-body problem", for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. [SNIP]
i use the word belief in everyday language about things that don't require belief, like believing my head is on my neck. but that's just nomenclature. when thinking about existential whatnots, i use belief in accordance with its root, "lief," which means to wish. Feelings or senses or anything that you just know, like breathing, seeing, yada, yada require no belief or wishing them to be
Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.
You do realize that you are (albeit inadvertently and politely) saying, "You believe things. I know things"? That the atheistic (or perhaps the anti-supernatural) worldview can begin the argument from this assumption allows it to claim it is based on facts and evidence while religious world views are pipe-dreams and hopes. Yet all worldviews are built on assumptions. The fact that you make these assumptions subconsciously and are surrounded by a society that shares them does not make the assumptions inherently more valid.
Yes, but atheism has no tenets which necessarily insists on evolutionary theory or a reduction to materialist determination. Red is wrong; there is no atheist doctrine or ideology--just a rejection of a god or many gods as tenable supernatural causes.
I have met a lot of crazy atheists online, quite similar to crazy Christians, with all kinds of implausible crock popping their eardrums. There is no creed to it, though atheism may be incorporated into doctrine.
That I can do nothing about.
Category error #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Given that the "evidence" for god consists of personal anecdotes and a book, the only refusal required is a refusal to believe unsupported myths of gods.
However, since you have discussed your motives in this thread, I am more than slightly sceptical: Red, you said this:
I came seeking some clarity from atheists about their belief system.
Your words, check them out.
That statement is clearly and self-admittedly false, because after claiming to seek clarity on what atheism is, you then state quite unequivocally what it is! This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely.
If you really wanted to find out what atheism is and what atheists do or don't believe, you would listen to replies from atheists, write to Richard Dawkins, read Bertrand Russell, but instead you choose to come in and state what atheists must believe to be atheists. The bad news is that you are clearly wrong on every count.
Incorrect. That's a materialist, not an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Incorrect. Atheism is no barrier to holding spritiual beliefs. Refer Buddhist atheists. (The statement is also merely a repetition of #1)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Incorrect. Atheists need not believe in abiogenesis, evolution, or any other mechanism to explain life as we know it. Some atheists have panspermian beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Incorrect. Atheism makes no comment on morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Incorrect. Refer again to Buddhist atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No hairs need be harmed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You are simply wrong. I doubt you'll admit it, since reality doesn't fit with your description of "atheism", but you are clearly and demonstrably wrong on every one of the five tenets you listed.
I'll agree that many atheists have those traits, but none of them are a requirement to be an atheist. Psychics, spiritualists, mediums, homeopaths, Buddhists, believers that life is controlled by invisible aliens and even David Icke's lizard people can all be atheists.
No kidding!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I even have a quote of mine which is widely used at an atheist forum:
"Atheism is no barrier to stupidity"
Interestingly enough, I've been discussing atheistic beliefs at Dawkins forum (from where I'm presently banned for slagging off atheists! :D) and there's some good research showing that atheists are actually more likely to hold other supernatural beliefs than theists, whose supernatural beliefs are generally limited to whichever deity they use. If I can hack my way back in, I'll find it and bring it along!
Off topic, but I find it interesting how those of us with *bans* in our pockets carry them around online like scarlet letters... however--I do not like feeling bullied in a thread I created in hopes to avoid circular argument, so the red cape, mon ami, is all yours. Don't get gored by those oh so strident and insistent horns, because I'd miss you.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
(blows a kiss)
"Quotes from the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or what-have-you can not be persuasive as such to those who do not believe, since they lack authority for those who have not accepted them."
The proof is in the pudding as they say. Even in the New Testament, it is written "prove me now herewith" meaning that biblical laws are supposed to be readily made manifestly evident by its believers. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have yet to see anyone walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead.
Still, if one wishes to believe these stories, it is their right to do so. The wrong exists when one is willing to kill in defense of unprovable assertions.
No chance!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I only get banned from places I don't care about.
;)
This where confusion can easily set in. Imagine someone 2000 years ago giving the kiss of life to a drowning victim. If the victim survived, I think the locals would have been suitably impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
Even with medicine, the placebo is a powerful effect - look at how many people believe homeopathy works in 2008. Again, 2000 years ago sometimes a shaman would actually appear to facilitate a "cure" and would gain a reputation as a healer. Or viral infections where a person can go from well -> dreadfully ill -> well again, all on their own, in a very short time frame. Given the right timing of "cure" adminstered it could easily appear that the shaman is getting it right. Thus do myths grow.
Dunno about walking on water, but some of the girls in the Olympic synchronised swimming seemed to be able to stand on it briefly.
Your use of the term "evidence" points to the Naturalist/Materialist strain that atheists must possess as a consequence of their refusal to believe in a spiritual component (i.e. God, angels, demons) to the universe. No Christian worth his salt will argue that he has any "evidence" for the existence of God. Atheists cannot prove God does not exist; nor can they prove the alternate explanation as to how we got here. The "evidence" argument gets us nowhere because the idea that there is "evidence" for a being who is beyond (not within) his creation is illogical: you can only find evidence for things within that system; God is "outside" the system he created (just as any artist is "outside" that which he creates).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
By golly, you're right - those are my words!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You "don't believe" my intentions are "stated honestly" but note your verb: "believe" - which is a different term than "know." How is that any different than what the Christian does? In other words: you attack Christians for believing something for which they have no "evidence," yet you judge me based upon what you believe to be true (but cannot really know with any true degree of certainty). Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm interested in how atheists face the fundamental questions of existence - how did we get here? What gives meaning to life? Where did morality come from and what makes it binding? What makes life valuable? Why should love exist at all? Why should anything exist at all?
Oh please. Don't drop Dawkins into this conversation. His discussions of Christianity are the lecture notes of an amature. He knows little about what he attacks. I do not state what atheists "must" believe - I state what they logically must believe when God is dispensed with. You've done little to show how "clearly wrong" I am beyond simply stating so. I can do the same: You care clearly wrong on every count. There - how authoritative was that?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
A semantic quibble. Once God and the spiritual world is dispensed with, all that is left is materialism/naturalism. When you refuse to give even slightly on points like this, I get discouraged thinking that we'll actually have a real discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The word "spiritual" deals with a dimension of reality that connects to a world that is beyond the natural world. When I use the world "spiritual" I am specifically referring to the existence of a spiritual world within which God, Satan, and their angels/demons exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Fine - "some" do; many do not, and what's left is abiogenesis. Telling me that a percentage believes something else doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to divine creation is life from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Too brief to be of any practical use in this discussion. Elaboration would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
That you can provide exceptions does not change the fact that my statements are generally true (which is what I said). Why you feel the need to try and argue against my list is a mystery - it's almost as if you're afraid to admit that I'm correct about anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Harmed, no; split; yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I do not suggest that they are "requirements" in that an atheist HAS to believe the things I listed; from where I stand, the things I listed seem to be the logical beliefs an atheist must hold in the absence of a creator God. The issue isn't whether I'm 100% accurate in my list - my list was an attempt to show that atheists carry a number of common beliefs - despite the numerous exceptions you may be able to dream up.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Your last two paragraphs point to an argument not that the Bible is self-authenticating, but rather that acceptance of the Bible is non-rational (note that I do not say it is irrational). By this I mean that there is no rational basis for the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
I have consistently argued your second point, which is that neither the atheist nor the theist can offer a proof that moves his/her position to knowledge. Both theism and atheism are the working out of belief systems that are non-rational choices. Both Red Zeppelin and myself have successfully refuted The Atheist's counter-claim on behalf of atheism so that is pretty much a settled matter.
The argument on the black swan doesn't work. If a black swan is described as a material object that possesses certain attributes and an item that does possess those attributes is presented, the object is in itself a proof of existence. This is very different from what you present Christianity. Radical scepticism (for example, denying that matter exists) is a dead end in terms of discussion, since ultimately one is drawn into a position where nothing can be known, and therefore, as Wittgenstein would advise us, we should be silent.
For me the inverse seems to be true. I hold myself in check better when I care less, not more. My soul is, sadly, still tangled up in a Poets & Writers community which, literally, no longer exists as I was once engaged with it. My essay is fairly honest about my ghosts, and my lack of fresh sources for renewal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The Network is okay, and it is a nice place to play aesthetic chess and lets me procrastinate while still using words, but on a personal level the community offers me no stepping stone to advance myself, and finding that would make me happier, so maybe I'll get banned for sniveling.:lol:
Not really. I KNOW, and so do you, things which are sensed or infered from sensing. The limit to which we trust our senses is the limit of true knowledge. To know things unnsensed, things which i cant look at or hear or feel to confirm their being, is not knowing but rather, believing. I'm not saying believers or religious people are wrong. I'm just saying their views are based in belief because the things they assert arent based in the realm of true KNOWledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
All world VIEWS are built on assumptions, but the world isnt.
Despite my discontent with this thread, which is why I'd like to get rid of it and start over, you have not convinced me that lack of belief in theism is not in itself a rational decision. I may not want to believe my brain is damaged, but since the fact that my cerebral palsy is evidently manifest, I can accept that my physical therapist told me when I was 13 that I have a hole in my head the size of a quarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
The argument that the geography of Israel is unique, which I've heard from apologists countless times, is not evidence to me of an omnipotent being who offers humanity conflicting moral prescriptions for success, and those that pick the wrong prescriptions are out of luck.
The argument that "god talks to me" is dubious. I have a cute little troll doll that Vinnie my cat insists on knocking off the tv--that I emotionally engage with Mr. Troll does not mean Pinocchio is a valid fairy tale.
The offering of human altruism as evidence is lame. We evolved as a social primate, and altruism is part and parcel of our success, so I do not see how accepting how matter behaves in the universe, and by extension its biology when it becomes so, as a process, isn't equally rational.
It is asking why the process is what it is which causes the trouble, and by the same token, asking why God revealed Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as inherently triumphalist when it isn't possible that each of them can be, at the same time, is what destroys the argument for God. If I know that Christians will eventually roast millions in ovens, and do nothing, then that isn't God; it is a monster--but monsters don't exist, thankfully.
My feeling towards atheists is that they, just as often as believers, attempt to force their beliefs on you but substitute faith with reason.
Being neither a believer or an atheist, I try to stay out of the issue as much as possible. I do however enjoy arguing with a very strong person (in either group, I mostly defend Christianity because it is more vulnerable than atheism in today's society) just to prove a point: your way is not the only way.
Which counter claim are you claiming to refuted?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I must have missed something, or, more likely, you given your opinion on something.
"Refuted" has a slightly different meaning.
Red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This is nothing more than repetition of your previous points, which were all wrong.
None of it has any relevance whatsoever.
I shall state again: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
Nothing more.
Until you reach the inescapable conclusion that what you said bears no relation to that simple statement of eight words, we are truly unable to make progress.
I must apologise for using the word "evidence", because my metaphorical use in that situation has clearly confused you. Evidence either way is not an essential trait for atheism. I was making a sly dig at the lack of evidence theists hold, not making any statement as to whether evidence is available, desirable or even necessary.
In what way is this relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
What I personally believe has no relevance to atheism or this discussion.
If you want to preach, preach away, but this train is completely irrelevant.
I do note that you haven't answered whether my belief is correct or not, though.
;)
Just like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As far as I can tell, I don't think I've ever attacked christians on the basis of them having no evidence. I've certainly asked why they don't have any evidence, but I wouldn't say I've ever attacked people for it. And I was not judging you, I was passing a comment based on your demonstrated posting in this thread.
But as I said, the outraged paragraph is as good a way as any of avoiding the question.
No matter.
Then maybe you should ask those questions instead of making sweeping and incorrect statements about atheists and atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Just be aware that any opinions you get will be personal answers from individual atheists. I'll gladly answer those questions from my personal perspective as a rationalist/materialist, but if you want to sue my answers as a basis for any truth about atheism, you need to go back to my italicised eight words above. You need to realise that the next atheist who offers an opinion might be a Buddhist and his/her opinions will differ vastly from mine.
Let me know if you'd like to discuss my opinion on those subjects.
Yes, but fortunately, I was asking you to check out his opinion on atheism, which you'd have to admit, he's a bit of a poster bloke for. That he's ignorant of christianity doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid opinion on what atheism is - he is a professor, after all. I just thought that being a name you're familiar with, you might be inclined to accept his opinion that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Please read that sentence again yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
It is lusciously ironic in its self-contradiction. Who on earth said atheists had to be logical? Sheesh, I gave you examples of several different types of atheists to whom logic is a dirty word.
Not even slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Check back. As noted in my last sentence, I have given you numerous, real-life examples of atheists who demonstrably show that your belief in what atheists must believe [logically, if you like] is wrong. David Icke's lizard peopleare atheists, yet they firmly believe the world is being run by extra-terrestials who take lizard form on earth.
Logic isn't high on their priority list and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are lots of other examples of similar silliness among atheists.
You claim that atheists must accept logic to be atheist.
You are just wrong.
Please don't try to turn the main point into "a semantic quibble".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You have simply created a false dichotomy for yourself - there are lots more options than materialism/theism. Why do I need to keep giving you the same examples time and time again? Maybe if I use a different one each time? Psychics don't fall into either of your camps.
I'm glad you're starting to think like me though - that serious discussion is impossible.
I refuse to give on points like this because you are wrong.
Now, excuse me for believing, but I believe your real beef is with the materialists you mention above. Maybe you need to start a thread somewhere to discuss that subject?
Astrologers believe a spirit world exists and they are also atheists. They don't believe your angels/demons do. (Generally)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Have you heard of the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory? While that one's a bit silly, there are lots of creation myths that people believe in. Why do you always limit yourself to two choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
That's a good one!
There's nothing to expand on. Atheism does not and cannot make any statement on morality. I can't exapnd on it, but I'll just say.....
Buddhists!
You can ask a humanist, a Buddhist, a materialist, a Rastafarian or an anarchist about morality, but they could all be atheists, so once again, you can only get personal opinion.
Again, if you want my personal opinion on morality, go ahead and ask.
Oh, come on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I can prove you wrong and you're still right?
And I wouldn't say I'm arguing against your list, either. I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to point out that you're wrong and that you keep making the same error over and over. Look, I admit there are a lot of anti-theists around who give atheism a bad name and that you might be angry about that, but just as secular people don't generally blame the rest of christianity for Fred Phelps, you need to stop attacking atheism in general. Find out who you're mad at and attack them.
In the meantime, I don't want to just sit idly by while you stridently repeat the same mistakes.
You seem to be [inadvertently] agreeing with me here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
We both accept that atheists can believe lots of things with no evidence whatsoever, which is great. We've covered logic, so I do think this time you're getting there. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. No evidence, no morality, no nothing else.
The trouble is that I personally think the number of atheists who subscribe to the tenets you stated originally is an extremely small percentage of atheists. Accordingly, I repeat that what you really need to do is establish who you're attempting to attack and narrow the target quite a lot.
Hopefully, we can now leave this subject as Jozanny is quite right that she started the thread for a different purpose and this ain't it.
I do not know about force, but my problem with the Judeo-Christian tradition is the story ultimately breaks down in linguistic failure, just as the explanation of particle physics does, and I do not see why a *loving* God would reward some of what it created, if it is indeed a reward, with unification to itself, or reunification--while the all those other souls stay separate in suffering just because they made the wrong choice. I love my neices and nephews. Should one of them become a murderer, it would certainly cause me pain, and would represent a wrong choice, but there is a difference between condemning an act and condemning a soul. The doctrines of monotheism are full of inherent contradictions in value, in this sense. Salvation is like a twelve step program with no rationale to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar
However, I believe what I really wanted from The Corner was to look at atheism as a social phenomena, rather than butting heads over the same old pro and con debates. I failed, obviously, to the extent that the pro and con continues.
And PS: I have no interest in *forcing* theists to rethink themselves, and indeed, do not want to debate them on doctrine, or Dawkins, because they wish to see what they want, and not understand what Dawkins means. The theists, Mr. V, are the ones who insist on continuing the hula-hoop games, actually, while I keep my distance and stay clear from most other threads in this sub-forum.
I think this is the same trouble that I've been discussing with Red - that there isn't a common thread for atheists to create any social dynamic. Lack of belief isn't binding and this is borne out by atheist websites and the like - getting atheists to agree on anything is worse tha herding cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Yes, but I am not really interested in that, so much as I am in the rise of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens as public intellectuals who have a say in the media elite. I am a writer and would like to join in. I don't really care for the game you and Red play, and it is a game, but I don't think persuasion is the goal for either of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Me? I am just out to make money, but would rather earn it through what I care about rather than doing sickening stuff like *womens interest*. Cultural observation is one way I don't have to be cheap--but I cannot turn LN into a virtual community for freelancers to feed off each other. Maybe I should look into making my own freelance forum, with a domain and webmaster, trying to balance between the academic MFA graduate and commercial writers. It would probably be difficult for me, but hey.
I can see why you'd like to join that group - there's money in anti-religion right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
As to myself, I don't seek to persuade anyone of anything either, which is why I won't debate Red's theology with him. I'm just making sure his strident postings of what atheists must believe don't get to stand unchallenged - because he's just wrong.
I don't even attack religion or christianity per se. While I enjoy poking fun at all theists, only fundies, biblical literalists and YECs get me going. When a doctrine needs to consider the entire body of known science as liars, imps of Satan or just plain wrong, I get fairly offended.
Starting forums is extremely hard work and probably fails most of the time. The bad news is that I just don't believe it's a good career move - either the forum or writing anti-theistic literature; too many others have done it now and unless you had something really new to say, selling is going to be nigh impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Had you considered literary work dealing with disability rather than god? That's an area which doesn't get much coverage and you'd have the advantage of originality?
Just a thought.
You have not "proved" anything, sir. You've merely stated again and again that I'm wrong as if there is no need to provide some sort of argument. I'm sometimes a little slow, so it would be nice if you would condescend to remind me as to how you've "proven" anything I've said wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Defining what a philosophic position is does not completely delineate the various ramifications of that position. I have laid out some of the ramifications of being an atheist (as least as I see them) - ramifications that logically follow from a disbelief in divine beings. You cannot simply say "we are our definition and nothing else." It doesn't work that way - all ways of believing, all ways of "seeing" the world carry with them latent ramifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
That would require you, my friend, to provide an "inescapable argument." I'm still waiting for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You didn't use it metaphorically; you used it sarcastically (hence the quotation marks). I'm not confused, sir - but if I am, it might be due to your imprecision with language. I responded quite clearly to what you said. I was making the point that atheists generally justify their decision as to the nonexistence of God by virtue of the lack of evidence to "prove" His existence. A good number of atheists that I've spoken to tend to be empiricists. My comments were aimed at the implied "evidence" that atheists often seem to think they possess for their world-view.
A simple note that atheists often find the Christian's "belief" in God insufficient - that such belief is misguided because of a lack of evidence; your comment ironically attests to the fact that all humans - Christian and atheist alike - draw conclusions based on what they believe to be true. You do not know me at all, and yet are willing to base your judgment on me on what you believe to be true. If you didn't understand that, and cannot see the relevance to the discussion, my apologies. I thought it was fairly obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
My brother, I haven't stepped within a mile of "preaching" yet. I do note that you haven't answered whether my belief is correct or not, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Fine - let me retract "attack" and substitute "criticize." Our "evidence" holds no more water for the unbeliever than theirs does for us. It's pretty even all around on the matter of "evidence."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Here's your statement:
"This is one reason why I don't usually bother discussing things with you - I don't believe your intentions are stated honestly and this post of yours bears that out nicely."
You asserted a "truth" - a "judgment" if you will - as to the contents of my heart and mind in terms of the motivations/intentions driving my arguments. You cannot know my intentions from my words - only God knows if I post to sincerely learn, or to simply aggravate people. I would never patronize you by telling you why I think you say what you do.
Not even bothered 1/10th enough to even approach mildly miffed, let alone "outraged." You better check my diction again.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You claimed atheism wasn't a belief system; I provided what seemed to me to be some of the ramifications of atheistic belief, which I think provide a sort of belief system.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Get over the fact that I made the list and please explain why they're wrong. (Providing exceptions, by the way, doesn't prove I'm wrong.) I don't get bothered by your sweeping generalizations about Christianity; I simply provide counter-arguments.
I'm already aware of what you say. Of course there will be variation, but overall, there should be some motifs that show up. It is not logically possible for each atheist - in the offering of his/her "personal perspective" - to offer a uniquely individual view of atheism that has nothing in common with other atheists. That should be obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The major problem with your response is that it tries to squirm out from the reality that Dawkins' book is as much about what he finds to be problematic about Christianity/religion as it does with atheistic belief. The title The God Delusion pretty much attests to the fact that he's aiming his sights on religion (which he understands about as much as I understand biology). That he's a professor of biology makes him an expert in that area; in terms of theology and Christianity - he's barely made it out of 4th grade in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If all Dawkins did was talk about atheism, his book probably would have disappeared without so much as a ripple.
I did and by golly, it still sounds good to me!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Not really. We were quibbling over the word "must" and I indicated that my "must" is less a requirement than a logical necessity from where I'm standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
For some atheists, you are certainly right. For most of the intellectual ones I encounter here, "logic" is often quoted as part of the justification for the rejection of a belief in God.
You provided some exceptions to the rule. Exceptions don't disprove the rule - they tend to confirm it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Nope. I claimed that logically, once one rejects God, there exist a number of conclusions that it would seem reasonable to assume that atheists accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm sorry, sir, in the world I come from, nobody is "just wrong": people are "wrong" when their position/argument is proven to be faulty. Your claim of my position being "just wrong" simply tells me your opinion; it does not tell me why I should agree with you in that opinon (which is what a good argument is at least intended to do).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm not creating a semantic quibble: I'm identifying the one you were using.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm aware that my dichotomy is not inclusive; but it does pretty much lay out the two primary positions that exist in terms of our genesis. That there are other splinter factions that believe all kinds of strange things doesn't change the fact that - overall - the two main positions that exist in explaining the origins of the universe and life are either a god/God, or materialism. Putting on aliens or other silliness only moves the problem off of earth - but it doesn't change the root positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
But at least I'll take the time to explain to you why I disagree with you and why I think your position is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
As I generally seem to be in conversations with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I have no "beef" with anybody here. I'm trying to learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'll pass on the new thread - I'm having too much fun in this one.
Exceptions validate the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd rather not spend too much of my limited time on this earth investigating "silly" things - could you provide me with something more serious so that I feel that I get a proper return for my invested time?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I never said atheists "made a statement" on morality. I asked for more clarification on your comment, which it appears you are unable to do; but why make comments that you lack the ability to explain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Sure: what is the basis for moral behavior in the absence of a transcendant moral law?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
That remains to be seen. Trust me, if you "prove me wrong" and I see it, you'll be the first to know. God says I'm not allowed to be dishonest about such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Nope. Not angry. Bemused is probably a better word. I've not "attacked" atheism in any way, shape or form. Please provide evidence of said attacks and I will post haste offer a sincere apology for that is not my intention. Atheists are quite entitled to believe as they wish without interference from me. My only issue is when they say silly, misinformed and ignorant things about Christianity as if such things were fact. Now that's annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Then feel free to walk out of our conversation (yet again); nobody is forcing you to engage me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
It's not that simple. But making it so does allow you to tell me I'm wrong. So I guess I see the advantage of taking a wildly narrow position as you have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm not attacking anybody. I figured that the atheists in the thread could provide some understanding for me in terms of the basis of their beliefs. I cannot speak for all Christians, but I certainly wouldn't back out of a discussion as you seem to be doing by claiming that "all Christians believe in their own unique vision of God, and as such, I can give you no list of general, basic beliefs that most Christians subscribe to." That's absurd. There are certain beliefs that 90% of Christians can claim, and I would give you those with the caveat that there are certainly variations. You won't even give that - instead claiming that there are no general truisms for atheists - that there are no common threads. I find that idea stunning in its absurdity.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You are free to walk away when you wish. But understand that you've done little to defend your position beyond claim loudly how "just wrong" I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Please re-read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You have stated what "atheists must logically believe" and I have given concrete and real-world examples of why you are wrong.
I'm not going to repeat it all again.
I have not answered parts of your post which are irrelevant, already answered, or both.
Already done, re-read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Some atheists, sure. Even including me, but it bears no relation to your statement that "all atheists must..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yet, that's exactly what you've done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I provided quotes in previous posts to show precisely where you have said one thing and done another. It doesn't bother me in the least that you do it, but I won't let you off without noting it.
Sorry, but exceptions do indeed prove you wrong. That's exactly how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Please show examples. I don't think I've done that at any stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Completely wrong. I'm no fan of Dawkins (who I usually refer to as Dorkins, by the way), so suggesting I'm squirming is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I used Dawkins as one example of what an atheist actuall is by self-description.
Coming off your claims on logic, I wish you'd apply logic to this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Again, this statement does not gel with your position. I have attempted to teach you where you're going wrong and you refuse to listen, reverting immediately back to the same errors. The post I'm quoting is a perfect example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
A telling comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Best you have a chat with him forthwith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Provide examples, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I have provided actual evidence.
I wanted to remove this from the rest of the post as it's a relevant question.
Realism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I understand that my listing is very general and certainly doesn't account for "all" atheists (and my original post does not indicate that "all atheists" must believe the tenants I listed); I think I made it clear that the list was my way of suggesting that among atheists there tend to be some shared views - and those shared views constitute a sort of "belief system." If I listed things that are totally inapplicable, then yes, I'm wrong. But none of the things I listed is in-and-of-itself wrong. What you've done is protest (rightly so) that those listed characteristics do not classify all atheists. Had you said that, I'd be agreeing with you. But, what you did was tell me that they're all wrong. That is not so - many atheists hold to the majority of things I listed. It would be correct for you to say that my list is not definitive in nature, but it's incorrect for you to deny any of it any validity whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
As well, my final paragraph in that post said this:
Feel free to let me know which of those beliefs is not applicable to atheism (at least in a general way - I'm not interested in hair-splitting).
My list does apply in a general way to a significant population of atheists. Are you willing to supply statistics to say that that is not so?
I have checked my posts over carefully. Nowhere do I put those three words together. Perhaps you ought to read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Responding to your statement that atheism isn't a belief system does not contradict my stated intention to learn something here. I disagreed with your statement and provided the reasoning for my belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're correct. Faulty logic on my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
But your statement is still irrelevant because you said Dawkins is a sort of "defender" (my word, relax) of atheism - but the reality is that he has styled himself as a self-appointed critic of religion/Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
My statement is consistent. You engaged me by arguing against my statement about atheism being a belief system. I responded to that challenge. I have allowed your points that there are exceptions to the "rules" (note the quotes, please) I listed; but those exceptions do not totally invalidate the criteria I listed as things that many atheists believe because those things I listed are generally consistent with at least a portion of atheists' view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
To you - who claims to know the contents of my heart - probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I have been doing so all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Virtually any statement made by hellzapoppin on the topic of religion should do nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
*sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Could you please elaborate? Thanks.
No, I'll grant you didn't say "all", however, that is irrelevant because your posts were unequivocal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"Require" and "must" doesn't leave anywhere for you to go on this other than an admission that you were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Which is a re-statement of the previous error. The only thing common to atheists - even in general terms - is that they don't believe in gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I guess you can define "wrong" any way you like, but I'll stick with "incorrect".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Small steps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
:thumbs_up
Well, I can and do deny it has any validity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I'll let you have a go, though.
You explain to me what common thread there is between me - a materialist/rationalist, a Buddhist monk, an astrologer, a Pagan and a psychic-believer, then we can look at it. Those others can be atheists, yet none of them are materialist or rational. If you can show me that materialist/rationalists are a majority of atheists, you will at least be able to claim most of 'em are. "Many" is irrelevant. Many people believe the moon landings were a hoax as well. Numbers confer no authority.
As well, my final paragraph in that post said this:
No, I'd certainly agree that a [statistically] significant proportion of atheists think that way. Maybe as much as 10-15% of all atheists. As to asking me to supply stats, you have it back to front. You want to argue how many atheists think the way you think they do, the onus is on you to find out & tell us. I doubt any genuine figures are available, though. And if they are, good luck finding that on Google!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
If you want to argue with the 10-15% of atheists who fit your criteria, go ahead and argue with them.
As you saw in my quotes above, I accept you didn't use those three words, but it also shows that my paraphrasing is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As long as you don't start coming out with unequivocal statements about what "atheists must logically believe", I can accept that. Now that you realise that there is no "atheists must logically believe" you could try asking questions which match your stated goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Sure, but I only used him as an authority on the meaning of the word atheist. Just as if I were going to find a generally-acceptable version of what christians believe, I'd be seeking examples from across the christian spectrum, not just one bloke. Dawkins was just a name I knew you'd know, and I was right, so let's not worry about any other of his positions. While I agree with him on lots of things, I find him quite susceptible to his own illogicalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
And it looks as though you've finally got it right - "a portion of atheists".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
:thumbs_up
Sorry, I don't know him/her at all or recall seeing any posts. The best plan is maybe to address those points directly to that poster. One poster on a forum of 52,926 members isn't worth getting worked up about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Not in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
We can do it by PM or those message-board things in CP if you like, or you can start a thread somewhere on "Secular morality" or some other such subject.
Send me a link if you do.
Fair enough. Though I will admit that my assumptions are based on the population that I'm most likely speaking to in this forum. Many of the strains of atheism you mention I'm not sure I've run into around here (Lit Net). So my error was in providing a list that seemed reasonable based upon the general themes I hear in posts by avowed atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm only wrong if no atheists anywhere subscribe to the list I created. Since I did not indicate that all atheists believed the tenants I listed, I have not committed any serious error beyond oversimplifying and not allowing for the exceptions you have provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Your final sentence is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Let me ask you this: once God/gods disappear from the universe (as in atheism), then what are the various theories as to how we got here if they are not evolutionary in nature? Since you seem to be knowledgable on various strains of atheism, perhaps you could briefly run down the theories?
For example - Buddhism apparently doesn't even bother with the question as to where we came from. That bypasses an explanation, but doesn't expressly remove Buddhism from having to believe in evolution. It just means they won't answer the question (which is itself an answer).
As I said above, I assumed a certain population based upon the context of this forum and the general tenor of comments I've observed from the atheists here. Trust me when I say that there are just as many generalizations about Christians here as there are of atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Are you in that percentage?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm sorry you're so hung up on the use of "must logically." I made it clear earlier that that statement was my belief that in the absence of God that a few clear ramifications resulted that seemed (at least in my mind) to be necessary beliefs. I'm fine with you telling me that that isn't so - but I think I've made it clear multiple times what my statement meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You asked for examples - his/hers are full of them. I didn't bring good old hellza up because I'm "worked up" - I brought him/her up because s/he perfectly provides innumerable silly generalizations and misconceptions about Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well, I assumed that an "Atheist Corner" would be the perfect place to get some clarity on atheists' ideas about things like the basis of morality, the existence of love, and the problem of free will. You mean this isn't the place for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Yep, those assumptions will kill you every time. But hey, we've fixed it, so that's great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There you go - self answered, people believe all sorts of things, including nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Honestly, a lot of people just don't care and have no opinion, just like Buddhists. I gave you panspermia, which is a wider belief than you'd expect - although still a small minority - and as regards psychics, astrologers & Pagans, I wouldn't attempt to speak for them for two reasons. One, I don't know, and two, we've just seen the danger in making assumptions. Most psychic-believers I've ever seen make a statement about their theistic beliefs are atheists, but as to what they believe, I have no idea because they're as crazy as loons and I don't bother getting into discussions with them.
Quite a lot of people believe life came to earth via aliens, but I haven't ever delved into where the aliens came from.
Sure there are, but it doesn't mean you should adopt the same tactic. I don't assume christians have any belief other than sharing the same god for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Almost certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There's no hang-up involved. "Must logically believe" is an imperative - no room for equivocation, see. You just need to stop using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
But playing the same game is just a living example of the tu quoque fallacy. Hardly worth it, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes, I do mean that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Jozanny stated what she wanted the thread to be about and what you're seeking isn't part of it, so accordingly that stuff is off-topic. What we've been discussing - what "atheist" means - is fair game (I think!) but if you really do want to discuss those questions, you ought to start a new thread. They're fairly dominant subjects and will just wipe the thread out if we get into them here, so it's reasonable to start a new thread. Doesn't cost anything and then Jo can hopefully mould the thread back into the shape she saw at the start.
If you're prepared to listen to answers, then I'll probably answer those questions on the basis of my opinions as a materialist/rationalist.