-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Panthera tigris FC said:
You presuppose:
Everything has a natural solution and that the Bible should be explained in terms of methodological naturalism.
There are many irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. Any attempt by Christians to reconcile them is illogical.
Miracles are impossible. The supernatural does not exist. Therefore nothing, live, nothing must be correct.
Evolution tells us about the nature of man 'he is just a pattern seeking ape'.
There should be proof positive that God exists. Where solid evidence exists however, it can easily be reinterpreted to fit with my world view or ignored.
The Judeo-Christian idea of God is incoherent - and He cannot be understood in a logical manner. Christians who attempt to do so are a priori, illogical.
The Bible is best explained as a pious fraud. The men that wrote it aren't around to defend themselves to I can besmirch thier character and question their existance in any way I choose.
Religious experiences are all delusions. I am not religious therefore I am not delusional.
Natural selection explains the existance of the universe, even if we don't full understand every process. Anyone who says otherwise has committed the 'incredulity' fallacy. If however I say that an almighty creator God is an unreasonable explanation I have not committed the same fallacy.
I am perfectly logical and all my presuppositions which I base my logic on are correct.
That about covers it.
Six Pack said:
This is the smartest post here for a long time.
Just because you disagree with a point of view, doesn't mean the basis of their point of view is illogical or stupid. It just means you don't believe it.
This is a serious problem, because when Sixer is rising above the pack we are all in trouble :-[
Djevv said:
So do you, except when it comes to your supernatural beliefs. You claim to be a scientist, and in the absence of any other evidence this is what the data suggests. Any scientist worth their salt knows that human perceptions and feelings are not to be trusted as stand alone evidence. You apply one standard for the majority of experiences in your life and another for your theological beliefs. This is special pleading, by definition.
I am not saying that the scientific process can answer every question, but it can, and has revealed much. This is more than can be said for your supernatural beliefs.
Also, much of my posting has been dealing with claims made that are clearly contradictory to the available evidence. When your beliefs start clouding your ability to see what is right in front of your eyes one of the real problems with this type of belief is revealed.
That is not a presupposition, each contradiction has been handled on its own and each of your protests have been systematically shown to be illogical, or suffer from poor investigative methodology (they aren't illogical by definition!).
Evo has previously dealt with this issue....the supernatural cannot exist, for once it does, it becomes part of the natural world and thus not supernatural. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of your so-called miracles (besides dodgy websites and questionable anecdotal evidence). As for nothing-live-nothing...you have no evidence to suggest otherwise outside of some wish thinking (as convincing as it may seem).
Again not a presupposition, but based on the available evidence.
Of course there must be proof positive...otherwise any crazy, unfalisifable idea could be bandied about as truth (the elves living at the bottom of my garden!). Where is this solid evidence? Hundreds of posts and I am still waiting to see it. This isn't through some attachment to not believing, but due to the quality of supporting evidence.
Well you said it, not me ;D. However, again, not a presupposition, but based on the contradictions and logical inconsistencies in the the fundamentalist Christiain theology. If you adequately dealt with those (instead of 'god works in mysterious ways') then this objection would be dropped.
Yet you have no problem doing this to every other holy book from other religions!?! Why the difference?
Non-sequitur. I can certainly be non-religious and delusional. My question on this matter is legitimate and yet to be addressed by any one of the believers. How do you rule out the possibility of self delusion, given the obvious benefits you see in this worldview?
What?!?! Strawman argument. Show where I have said such a thing! The accusation of argument from incredulity is only levelled when the evidence is available and yet you haven't taken the time to look at it and use your ignorance on a topic as evidence against the topic!
As for your God, I am incredulous! Where is the verifiable evidence? There is none, by definition, hence the 'leap of faith'. If you are happy to do that, good luck to you, but excuse me for not taking your word for it. It is nothing personal.
Strawman. If you see logical inconsistencies in my arguments (and I am sure there are plenty) point them out. This blanket statement has never been claimed, nor presumed.
That about covers it.
Indeed.
Tiger74 said:
Agreed. However when the contents of the post are shown to be illogical (stupid is too subjective, however tempting >
) than the onus is on the poster to point out the logic.To make assertions of disbelief are just that, assertions, no more, no less and no different to assertions of belief.
Panthera tigris FC said:Agreed. However when the contents of the post are shown to be illogical (stupid is too subjective, however tempting >
To make assertions of disbelief are just that, assertions, no more, no less and no different to assertions of belief.
Its illogical using the framework you are using to analyze the situation. The Christians have a different framework. As to who's framework is superior, my bet is you are both a little bit right, and a whole lotta wrong, but we probably need another 2000 years to confirm that.
My money is based upon looking at the human track record of getting the "why are we here" question right, and so far we are massive on the swing and miss side.
Panthera tigris FC said:Agreed. However when the contents of the post are shown to be illogical (stupid is too subjective, however tempting >
To make assertions of disbelief are just that, assertions, no more, no less and no different to assertions of belief.
I disagree. i am being asked to believe in something that doesnt exist, doesnt show itself, and that there is no evidence for. its like if someone said they owned a car but they couldnt prove it. why should i try and disprove something that someone else claims to be there but they cant display it.
the onus of proof is on the beleiver, not the non-beleiver.
Tiger74 said:
Are you referring to the 'Does God exist?" question? I would agree with you there, except to say that no one has some miraculous insight - assertions aside.
However I am usually responding to posts making fallacious claims about the natural world, where contradictory empirical evidence does exist.
As for your hedging of bets, what is your basis for thinking that both are a little right and a whole lotta wrong?
The 'why are we here' question has been swing and miss by religions for a long time...hence the plethora of these contradictory belief systems throughout human history. Science doesn't say anything on the 'why'. It does have a good track record though of shedding light on the 'how'. We'll leave the 'why' to the philosophers (what else do they have to do? ;D).
Six Pack said:
Indeed...but you have made an argument there, not just a blanket assertion. The onus is on the believer.
Six Pack said:
I tend to agree but I am glad the basis of our society is formed from core moralistic(religious) beliefs whether they are Christian or not because it's the only thing that separates us from animals. Humanity would be a fair bit different if we didn't have structure to live our lives by but it is a shame it is attached so closely to religion.
Six Pack said:
If you don't want to see the car perhaps you won't see it either sixy.
Do I believe in God? Not currently but there's plenty who do.
I certainly won't discount that there is something out there just because I haven't 'seen the proof' but it does lead me away from it based on my experiences.
I haven't seen what others see but these people are not fools or liars.
They wholly believe in their relationship with a higher being and who am I to mock them for it just because I can't see what they do?
Good luck tio them if they see something, it's not my place to try and talk them out of it, just as I can't stand bible bashers.
Panthera tigris FC said:
It goes both ways.
Faith based solutions have a chronic history of failure, although I do love the one where the world is on the back of a giant turtle (shame we disproved that).
As for science, science over the centuries told us the world was flat, that sun revolved around the earth, consuming lead and arsenic were good for some medical conditions, and bleeding was a fantastic medical practice.
For both, time and learning dispel a lot of the rubbish, and help refine the rest to find more clear view of the truth. This continues with Christians (for instance), where debate and discussions on the teachings of Jesus and the bible continue today. We still have a bitter argument for example on whether or not the bible accepts or excludes gay/female clergy.
As for science, the more we learn, the more we learn we misunderstood certain facts. I think while our understanding is exponentially greater than it was 20, 200, and 2000 years ago, we still have a great deal to learn. Much of our knowledge of space is based upon theory still simply because of technical limitations, we have barely combed the depths of our oceans, and medical science is still discovering new issues to deal with.
For me personally, the reason I have a foot in both camps is because right now that is what makes sense to me. I don't think science has an adequate explanation for "why are we here" yet, and while I don't necessarily believe in a God as such, I think the creation of life and intelligent life most likely has more behind it than "we were lucky".
As for the other camp, whatever is out there, I don't think it wants my worship, or needs it (especially as I don't think there is an "it"). Now we are here, we need to live our lives as best possible, and this is done through learning about ourselves and the world, not by praying for God to intervene every 23 seconds. I believe what happens now is completely up to us, and only science can provide these answers on how to move forward.
Most of the moral benefits and 'justice'we enjoy these days are down to the enlightenment era thinkers Locke,Paine,Spinoza,Kant,Descartes etc. The 'social contract' ,'bill of rights,universal declaration on human rights etc.Tigers of Old said:
Moreover, most of the quality ideas of the 17th and 18th century that we enjoy came DESPITE religion,rather than because of it.
The periods prior to the age of reason /enlightenment weren't called the dark and middle ages for nothing. It was a time of high religion,yet gross injustice, inequality, ignorance and barbarity.
for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada
Religion and Morals aren't synonyms.
