Atheism-o-Phobia

kaaleppi · October 14, 2010, 10:00pm

[quote]kamui wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I could have said that. Maybe you misunderstood me, because english is not my first language. Although I don’t like the chess analogy. We are talking about something that is more organic in nature. Chess rules don’t change in that way, but language does.

krsoneeeee · October 14, 2010, 10:07pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.

krsoneeeee · October 14, 2010, 10:21pm

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

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

You know full well that there is no irrefutable evidence against the existence of a god. (hence your confidence in telling people to prove it) - But if you’re worth half your weight in the amount of times you posted here, youll know the same can be said for your side of the argument. However, YOU are the one making accusations that there is a magic man who can create universes, so the responsibility lies on you to prove it. (why would i follow a religion that has no evidence to support it, (unless i had been brainwashed into it by my parents at a young age))

In saying that, you also know full well that there is a lot of scientific evidence that goes against the grain of religion (of which you know is too much to post here, or that we probably even understand). And that scares you, and i understand why it would. If i led my whole life and found out one day (and we will) that its all bollocks…well you get the idea.

Im open to the fact there COULD be a god, i really wish there was but it doesnt make any sense and there is no proof, (all you have to do is THINK, why am i not hindu? why do i not follow the greek gods?) because its all fucking made up and dependent on where you grew up. )

in fact everything ive read is proof to the contrary of religion so until the day we see some solid evidence, fill your boots mate, each to their own

JoabSonOfZeruiah · October 14, 2010, 10:31pm

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]
If everything that exist has an explanation for its existence whether being caused by an external thing or by the necessity of its own nature. Then the first cause exists due to its nature as being uncaused otherwise it wouldn’t be the first cause. So the first cause would be eternal, self existing.

krsoneeeee · October 14, 2010, 10:35pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Libraries have fiction and non-fiction bud. try to jump off your pedestal before you call people shorties or son.

The human mind is inherently brittle, remember this, and open your mind to other possibilities.

just out of curiosity - if there was a god, why would he make a heaven and a hell - also where do these places exist? (according to your beliefs)

JoabSonOfZeruiah · October 14, 2010, 10:47pm

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
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 primitiveÃ¯Â»Â¿ 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).”

[/quote]
Ok I watch the whole debate and I would have to disagree with you, its not reasonable to say Atkins was right in everything he said if he used fallacies to back up his arguments. Did you even consider Criag’s arguments? Anyways if you want to bring up specific objections from the debate I will reply to them as best as I can(as I have to study for a test and turn in some homework tomorrow). However to your claim that there is no evidence or proof of God I would have to say you probably ignored the argument Craig laid out anyways the argument is that the casual chain cannot go on forever or else its just begging the question. Who the first cause is a other matter all together.

Makavali · October 15, 2010, 3:19am

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

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

Theology is not a science.

Cortes · October 15, 2010, 3:38am

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.

Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.

Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.

So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)

[/quote]

So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

Sloth · October 15, 2010, 3:54am

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

[/quote]

Christian hip-hop, yo.

duffyj2 · October 15, 2010, 8:15am

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.

Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.

Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.

So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)

[/quote]

So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

[/quote]

I wouldn’t worry about it. You’ll get knocked up later.

krsoneeeee · October 15, 2010, 12:39pm

(hopefully i can articulate this right)

The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.

Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?

Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.

Cortes · October 15, 2010, 1:19pm

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)

The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.

Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?

Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.

You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?

Cortes · October 15, 2010, 1:20pm

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.

Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.

Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.

So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)

[/quote]

So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

[/quote]

I wouldn’t worry about it. You’ll get knocked up later.[/quote]

Oooooooh, responses!

pat · October 15, 2010, 1:49pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.

Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.

Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.

So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)

[/quote]

So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

[/quote]

I speaketh the truth, and the truth hurts and pisses people off.
Try spending one day telling the truth about everything no matter how small and see what kind of reactions you get…

Cortes · October 15, 2010, 1:59pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.

Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.

Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.

So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)

[/quote]

So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.

Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?

[/quote]

I speaketh the truth, and the truth hurts and pisses people off.
Try spending one day telling the truth about everything no matter how small and see what kind of reactions you get…
[/quote]

Be careful, you know what Oscar Wilde said about telling people the truth…

pat · October 15, 2010, 2:01pm

[quote]chobothx wrote:

[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?[/quote]

First cause, by definition, could not be cauased. If it were, it’d the the second and what caused ‘it’ would be first.

pat · October 15, 2010, 2:36pm

[quote]kamui wrote:

[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”.[/quote]

Well if you want to split hairs and all yes. But that is where his genius came in. He attacked all the dogmatic tenants of believers and such but never declared one way or the other, presumably for fear of retribution. His works on causality and inductive inferences is what ultimately give me a hard on. He kicked the door open on what can be sensed and what is real.
On Kant, I would say that he should of said that we can’t prove that God is who we think he is. We can deduce there is a uncaused-cause and infer that it is God. I would say the inference is not a giant leap though. The necessary properties of what an uncaused-cause must have, are “God-like”, but it’s is still inferred and not deduced.

Ironically, it is easier to prove through reason that a prime mover exists, that it is that you, yourself (or me myself) exists.

pat · October 15, 2010, 2:37pm

[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]

The first-cause just is, it cannot be caused…It must sit outside the causal chain.

pat · October 15, 2010, 2:44pm