Atheism-o-Phobia

[krsoneeeee]

cool ive listened to about half of it so far - Atkins isn’t a very articulate speaker but seems to have better points - One of the youtube comments which is exactly what i was thinking- “no matter how Atkins did in the debate he’s right in almost everyrhing he said, while Craig, despite being a master in bullshitting and making pure nonsense sound almost intelligible”

-----and goes on to say------

“despite …is in the end of the day pushing a primitive belief system which only finds sanity in its large number of followers. Otherwise Christianity certainly would’ve been viewed as a sign of clinical derangement (and one day it will rightly be viewed this way).”

[pat]

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.

Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]

Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]

Proof? Or should I just take your word for it?[/quote]

You live your whole fucking life without proof! (except for that dusty old book called the bible) it’s pretty good as far as fictional novels go.
[/quote]

Good, so you admit you live life purely on faith. Do you have any evidence that science “disproves” religion? Don’t say dumb shit you cannot backup, you painted with a big brush, now you have to prove it.

[pat]

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]

Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…

“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Self destructing statements…[/quote]

Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.[/quote]

Aye… using metaphysics to attempt to disprove metaphysics… but what other choice does the atheist have?

It is imperative that atheist scientists understand that they are not qualified to pontificate on answering the questions of ‘Why?.’[/quote]

Why would you want to try to prove the existence of metaphysics?

Scientists have to ask why, atheist or not, otherwise they are an intern to a scientist, not a scientist. If that’s what you were asking, you did not make a lot of sense.

[chobothx]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]

Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…

“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Self destructing statements…[/quote]

Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.[/quote]

Aye… using metaphysics to attempt to disprove metaphysics… but what other choice does the atheist have?

It is imperative that atheist scientists understand that they are not qualified to pontificate on answering the questions of ‘Why?.’[/quote]

Why would you want to try to prove the existence of metaphysics?

Scientists have to ask why, atheist or not, otherwise they are an intern to a scientist, not a scientist. If that’s what you were asking, you did not make a lot of sense.[/quote]

Why do metaphysics exist in a meaningless, random world?
Why does the law of non-contradiction exist in a un-caused universe?

“Ladies and gentlemen…if you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be? It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.”

• John Polkinghorne (Quantum Physicist @ Cambridge)

[pat]

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]

Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…

“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Self destructing statements…[/quote]

Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.[/quote]

Aye… using metaphysics to attempt to disprove metaphysics… but what other choice does the atheist have?

It is imperative that atheist scientists understand that they are not qualified to pontificate on answering the questions of ‘Why?.’[/quote]

Why would you want to try to prove the existence of metaphysics?

Scientists have to ask why, atheist or not, otherwise they are an intern to a scientist, not a scientist. If that’s what you were asking, you did not make a lot of sense.[/quote]

Why do metaphysics exist in a meaningless, random world?
Why does the law of non-contradiction exist in a un-caused universe?

“Ladies and gentlemen…if you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be? It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.”

• John Polkinghorne (Quantum Physicist @ Cambridge)[/quote]

Nothing is random, everything is caused. ← Prove either of these wrong, I double-dog, no I triple dog dare you…Quit quoting people and think for yourself.
For that matter, prove metaphysical objects don’t exist. The second you muster a thought, you’re dealing in metaphysics.

Many quantum physicists have tried to prove something from nothing and all have failed. No matter what, something is always there.

Null theory is not something from nothing, neither is M-Theory or all the various flavors of string theory.

[kamui]

[quote]If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.

So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.

That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.

Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.

It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?

I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand. [/quote]

this kind of postmodernism is so utterly absurd i didn’t even consider it.

“me the individual” found language and concepts already there when i’m born.
with all their semantic history and their logical rules already set.

i can’t do whatever i want with that. because even if we concede most of the postmodernist arguments (and i won’t) a rule is still a rule.

i can always move my tower diagonnaly as if it was a queen, but then i’m not playing chess.

i can always decide that torturing babies is a must, but then i’m not playing the game called “morality”.
i would be playing another game, properly called sociopathy.

and btw atheism started millenias before this postmodernism trend, and will exist long after postmodernism fade out.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.

So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.

That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.

Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.

It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?

I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand. [/quote]

this kind of postmodernism is so utterly absurd i didn’t even consider it.

“me the individual” found language and concepts already there when i’m born.
with all their semantic history and their logical rules already set.

i can’t do whatever i want with that. because even if we concede most of the postmodernist arguments (and i won’t) a rule is still a rule.

i can always move my tower diagonnaly as if it was a queen, but then i’m not playing chess.

i can always decide that torturing babies is a must, but then i’m not playing the game called “morality”.
i would be playing another game, properly called sociopathy.

and btw atheism started millenias before this postmodernism trend, and will exist long after postmodernism fade out.
[/quote]

If word meanings are arbitrary than the there is no purpose to language. It would be the same as grunting, just meaningless noise.

[kamui]

[quote]
Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life. [/quote]

i would agree if Hume actually attempted to disprove God’s existence and made arguments for atheism.
but if i remember correctly… he didn’t.

like so many philosophers of his century,he attempted to disprove miracles, denied the absolute authority of Revelation, critized superstitions and idolatry, but he never explicitly declared himself an atheist.
not even an agnostic.

his epistemology left the question unanswered.
Kant answered it later. And his answer was a theistic one.
“i can’t prove there is a God, but I have to hope there is one”.

[chobothx]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]

Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…

“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Self destructing statements…[/quote]

Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.[/quote]

Aye… using metaphysics to attempt to disprove metaphysics… but what other choice does the atheist have?

It is imperative that atheist scientists understand that they are not qualified to pontificate on answering the questions of ‘Why?.’[/quote]

Why would you want to try to prove the existence of metaphysics?

Scientists have to ask why, atheist or not, otherwise they are an intern to a scientist, not a scientist. If that’s what you were asking, you did not make a lot of sense.[/quote]

Why do metaphysics exist in a meaningless, random world?
Why does the law of non-contradiction exist in a un-caused universe?

“Ladies and gentlemen…if you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be? It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.”

• John Polkinghorne (Quantum Physicist @ Cambridge)[/quote]

Nothing is random, everything is caused. ← Prove either of these wrong, I double-dog, no I triple dog dare you…Quit quoting people and think for yourself.
For that matter, prove metaphysical objects don’t exist. The second you muster a thought, you’re dealing in metaphysics.

Many quantum physicists have tried to prove something from nothing and all have failed. No matter what, something is always there.

Null theory is not something from nothing, neither is M-Theory or all the various flavors of string theory.[/quote]

“Quit quoting people and think for yourself.”

You come up with that one yourself? lol.

What caused the first cause? Time + Matter + Chance decided to explode?

[kamui]

the first cause caused itself.
if not, then, it’s not the first (and not a cause, but an effect).

that being said, a self-caused cause is not a necessarly a personnal God.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.

So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.

That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.

Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.

It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?

I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand. [/quote]

this kind of postmodernism is so utterly absurd i didn’t even consider it.

“me the individual” found language and concepts already there when i’m born.
with all their semantic history and their logical rules already set.

i can’t do whatever i want with that. because even if we concede most of the postmodernist arguments (and i won’t) a rule is still a rule.

i can always move my tower diagonnaly as if it was a queen, but then i’m not playing chess.

i can always decide that torturing babies is a must, but then i’m not playing the game called “morality”.
i would be playing another game, properly called sociopathy.

and btw atheism started millenias before this postmodernism trend, and will exist long after postmodernism fade out.
[/quote]

If word meanings are arbitrary than the there is no purpose to language. It would be the same as grunting, just meaningless noise.[/quote]

Post-modernism falls in the traditional thesis-antithesis scheme. Differences in opinion about what it means is just part of the game. Words have a background and the background changes with time. Take any meaningful conception and study it in its historical context, that’s why you are interested in the meanings of words in the biblical time, and you’ll find the same thing. The meaning changes with the context.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???

Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.

One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …

Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.

[/quote]

I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.

Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)

???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.

You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.

I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…

On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[/quote]

Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.

That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.

Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]

Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]

What religion though, when making a conclusion (even without proper premises), one should not use abritrary words.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.

Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]

Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]

Proof? Or should I just take your word for it?[/quote]

You live your whole fucking life without proof! (except for that dusty old book called the bible) it’s pretty good as far as fictional novels go.
[/quote]

Who are these shorties coming in here and not even studying the Catholic Church, they say we have no proof. We have libraries of it. Learn before you speak, son.

[chobothx]

[quote]kamui wrote:
the first cause caused itself.
if not, then, it’s not the first (and not a cause, but an effect).

that being said, a self-caused cause is not a necessarly a personnal God.

[/quote]

K, I’ll take your word for it.

[haney1]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.

So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.

That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.

Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.

It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?

I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand. [/quote]
[/quote]

this kind of postmodernism is so utterly absurd i didn’t even consider it.

That is true postmodernism. That is the form being used by all of the leading philosophers of post modernism

“me the individual” found language and concepts already there when i’m born.
with all their semantic history and their logical rules already set.

post modernism denies these ideas. You are already describing a frame work which if true to postmodernism is at odds.

i can’t do whatever i want with that. because even if we concede most of the postmodernist arguments (and i won’t) a rule is still a rule.

The postmodern idea supercedes the rule. in fact it imposes the idea that the rules are really just relative, and that it is we who give that idea any meaning.

i can always move my tower diagonnaly as if it was a queen, but then i’m not playing chess.

True, but you are assuming that a postmodern see life as a game of chess and they are not playing by the rules. Instead they would say that each individual is playing his own game and can call it what he wants. As well as make up any rule he wants since there is no over arching theme. Chess has an over arching theme. To the postmodernist existance has no over arching theme so there is no real regulation to it.

i can always decide that torturing babies is a must, but then i’m not playing the game called “morality”.
i would be playing another game, properly called sociopathy.

Now where do you get this idea od morality if there is no over arching theme? Who’s morality?
Did this morality always exist? would you say it is a Universal law?

and btw atheism started millenias before this postmodernism trend, and will exist long after postmodernism fade out.

I agree that atheism existed long before we came up with a thing called post modernism. What I said though was that post modernism is the logical conclusion of atheism.

Now that doesn’t mean all atheist will see it to that conclusion, but that doesn’t degrade my point either.

It was pointed out what the Spartans did earlier in this thread, but I have to ask how can you prove your idea of not killing babies with defects as a more moral choice?

Where does this authority to judge other peoples morals come from?

Disclaimer
(please note that my response is meant as food for thought and discussion, if it comes across as rude or condescending I don’t mean for it to sound like that and I am sure you are a nice person in real life. I am just trying to convey the postmodern thought as well as some of the problems that I see it can cause for atheism).

[kamui]

Post-modernism falls in the traditional thesis-antithesis scheme. Differences in opinion about what it means is just part of the game. Words have a background and the background changes with time. Take any meaningful conception and study it in its historical context, that’s why you are interested in the meanings of words in the biblical time, and you’ll find the same thing. The meaning changes with the context.

the meaning of the words may change but the way the human mind work won’t change anytime soon.

cultural diversity doesn’t mean there is no human nature (and/or structure) and therefore cultural diversity is not an argument for moral relativism.

that’s why i took chess as an example.

the rule of chess are culturally and historically determined. In away, they are even arbitrary.
they could be changed. And we could make an infinity of chess-like games with slightly different rules.

but all these games will still have rules, and will always have some similar underlying structures that make them learnable and playable.

btw, these changes are never individuals, they are collectives by nature.
if you change the rules of a game (or a word) based on your own individual preferences, you will just end up playing (or speaking) alone.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]kamui wrote:
the first cause caused itself.
if not, then, it’s not the first (and not a cause, but an effect).

that being said, a self-caused cause is not a necessarly a personnal God.

[/quote]

A cause cannot cause itself.

[kamui]

why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ?