Atheism

[tigertime2]

Convenient. So it's the Bible's fault some Priests abuse kids? Or are Catholics not following the Bible properly by not allowing Prests to marry?

You cannot blame God or the bible for the despicable actions of some catholic priests.

By not allowing Priests to marry, IMHO does go a long way to seeing some of the abuse that happens in the Catholic church.

I cannot imagine the suffering that these victims go through, I remeber when I was about 12 we used to train at a Catholic school oval and one night I was the last to leave the change rooms and the Priest came in and started talking with me, I thought he was quite friendly. Then my Catholic mate came in and gave the Priest a good old talking too, said that if he tried anything on his mates his dad would come up and sort him out. I didn't know what he was talking about at that time, but I certainly know now what he meant. My Mates Brother and cousin both played in the AFL.

 

[tigertime2]

Approximately 4.54 billion years old.

This is based on numerous independent methods. Not just the single method that your website attempts to debunk (incorrectly mind you).

So you are a young earth creationist tigertime2?

I am glad you used the word approximately ;D

 

[tigertime2]

What do the 10 commandments have to do with the Golden Rule? Stop shifting the goal posts.

I see when you quote other sources that make your view strong you are right, but when i quote older text I am shifting the Goal Posts.

 

[Djevv]

Let me get this straight. You (any believer...Djevv, Jay etc.) have a 'feeling' that there is a God. I don't mean to undervalue that 'feeling'...but the basis of your belief was some 'I see the light' moment, which is reinforced by continued reaffirmations (ie. good things are rewards from your benevolent god and bad things are 'tests' or 'god works in mysterious ways' situations? Thus, when you look at the physical evidence around you, you interpret in light of this 'personal knowledge' that is unchanging (short of God himself stating that he doesn't exist - hat tip to evo). Therein lies the methodological problem...the basis of everything is a subjective (albeit powerful) feeling that a God exists and you try to conform the physical evidence to this subjective belief. You have a vested interest in proving the existence of your God.

Fair comments. At the end of the day the whole Bible is based around revelation knowledge. So although you can't prove it is correct in a quantitative sense, psychologically I would have thought you have to explain it as some sort of mass delusion or real. IMO. There have been a lot of pretty amazing life changes that have come through Christ.

Where is the atheist's vested interest?

I don't think I have ever met a 'committed atheist'. Anyone who has come to such a position has usually done so through analysis of the available evidence, in the absence of the 'hallelujah moment' and has found the evidence sorely lacking. Every atheist I know would happily become a theist if the evidence pointed in that direction.

Can you see the distinction in the two approaches?

Why would anyone want to be atheist as a dogmatic stance?

What you are saying here sounds reasonable, and maybe it is true for you, but I have seen a lot of pretty dogmatic fundy atheists on the net. There is also a lot of anger, mockery and pisstaking. I often wonder why? I mean are Christians really that threatening?

There are really two different issues that are intertwined on this and the Christianity thread. One is on the existence of a God of any 'flavour'. An all powerful creator. I don't think this can be decided on one way or the other absolutely...it will always come down to faith. I personally don't see a reason for faith, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

However, much of the discussion on these threads have revolved around Christianity and much of what fundamentalist Christianity and literal interpretations of the Bible lead to. Many of those claims are patently false and have been covered on these threads to a large extent (eg. evolution, Noah's flood, Revelations, miracles etc.). It is these areas where I am happy to point out the flaws in the 'fundy beliefs' and where the extreme methodological errors in the analysis of the data are committed (wherein the conclusion is known before the data is even glanced over).

I think you will find that lots of science is done in a similar way, by interpreting data along the lines of the ruling paradigm. I remember having an old Geology text with everything fitted into the 'Geosynclinal (pre-plate Tectonics)' paradigm of the time. Nowadays that has been done away with, and everything has a plate Tectonic interp. Now I agree that the Creationists have'nt been too successful in shifting the paradigm, but having a go isn't a crime. Everyone once thought Wegener was crazy too!

Anyway, I wondered if you would have a look over this article on the Bacterial flagellum. Its quite technical, but it seems to be arguing that the evolutionary pathways evolved AFTER the flagellum. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

[tigertime2]

Again you seem to be focusing on the area of scholarship into the Bible as a text. Nice for those interested in the development of the Bible as a work in and of its time, but hardly definitive in terms of one's approach to the question of proof of God.

I see very little that is factual in most of those sites Djevv unfortunately. As for bias, we all have our biases. Professional scientists and researchers put aside bias and try to examine evidence impartially. The sites you present do not do that - in fact the complete opposite. The quality of the "evidence" they put forward is pathetic, put simply.

In the end, the only evidence you have is a book and a personal intuition. Nice for you, but not convincing to anyone with a more rational approach.

Again you have no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist. but as I told my science teacher many years ago, when he was trying to promote that man evolved from monkeys - by looking at him it may actually be some remote evidence that in fact he did evolve from a monkey.

 

[tigertime2]

Again you have no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist. but as I told my science teacher many years ago, when he was trying to promote that man evolved from monkeys - by looking at him it may actually be some remote evidence that in fact he did evolve from a monkey.

I forgot to ad that the whole class roared with laughter and quite rightly he proceeded to give me 2 canes across my bare legs, which hurt for quite some time.

 

[Djevv]

Again you seem to be focusing on the area of scholarship into the Bible as a text. Nice for those interested in the development of the Bible as a work in and of its time, but hardly definitive in terms of one's approach to the question of proof of God.

I see very little that is factual in most of those sites Djevv unfortunately. As for bias, we all have our biases. Professional scientists and researchers put aside bias and try to examine evidence impartially. The sites you present do not do that - in fact the complete opposite. The quality of the "evidence" they put forward is pathetic, put simply.

In the end, the only evidence you have is a book and a personal intuition. Nice for you, but not convincing to anyone with a more rational approach.

Evidence:
66 books written at different times by different people in different styles over 2000 years. All with a common theme. We now call it the Bible.
Extra-Biblical references to people/events mentioned in the Bible.
Archaeological findings (200 years of them)
The cosmological argument (where did we come from?)
The teleological argument (why all the order?)
The argument from morality (what is man?)
The fine-tuning argument (the anthropic principle?)
Various other philosophical arguments

Christian Apologetics = using this evidence to make a case for Faith in the Bible as God's Word. They don't make up the evidence.

 

[Tiger74]

You cannot blame God or the bible for the despicable actions of some catholic priests.

By not allowing Priests to marry, IMHO does go a long way to seeing some of the abuse that happens in the Catholic church.

I cannot imagine the suffering that these victims go through, I remeber when I was about 12 we used to train at a Catholic school oval and one night I was the last to leave the change rooms and the Priest came in and started talking with me, I thought he was quite friendly. Then my Catholic mate came in and gave the Priest a good old talking too, said that if he tried anything on his mates his dad would come up and sort him out. I didn't know what he was talking about at that time, but I certainly know now what he meant. My Mates Brother and cousin both played in the AFL.

This is not just a catholic thing; ministers, pastors, elders, rev's, etc have all got bad form in this area.

 

[tigertime2]

This is not just a catholic thing; ministers, pastors, elders, rev's, etc have all got bad form in this area.

Yes, you are correct and lets ad members of the general public including athiests, it is a terrible thing for the victims and I do apologize for just mentioning the Catholic priests.

 

[tigertime2]

Evidence:
66 books written at different times by different people in different styles over 2000 years. All with a common theme. We now call it the Bible.
Extra-Biblical references to people/events mentioned in the Bible.
Archaeological findings (200 years of them)
The cosmological argument (where did we come from?)
The teleological argument (why all the order?)
The argument from morality (what is man?)
The fine-tuning argument (the anthropic principle?)
Various other philosophical arguments

Christian Apologetics = using this evidence to make a case for Faith in the Bible as God's Word. They don't make up the evidence.

Very good points Djevv.

 

[evo]

I've looked at the first 2 arguments at great length;it's one of the reasons I got interested in philosophy in the first place:

The cosmological argument (where did we come from?)

Begging the question fallacy (sorry forgot which the relevant emoticon ) also "turtles all the way down"

It's a sh!t argument and an insult to logical thought.Aquinas should've been burnt at the stake for crimes against reason.

The teleological argument (why all the order?)

As above--Begs the question.BTW this argument doesn't speak to order(the fine tunning one does) it speaks to 'purpose' the theists favourite smokescreen argument.

The argument from morality (what is man?)

Not sure what you mean.

I can only assume that your contention is we get our morals from God.(Socrates dealt with this even before Jeebus showed up.

The fine-tuning argument (the anthropic principle?)

hehe this one always cracks me up. I love how apologists are not above using modern atrophyisics discoveries if it may give them a argument to cling to,but show them a solid theory thats stood the test of time like evolution and they cry "speculative!"

Various other philosophical arguments

Well i hope so,because the previous ones are all very shoddy.

 

[Tiger74]

Arguing the absence of something is nearly impossible, which is why much of this discussion goes around in circles. Both sides are trying to prove they are right by showing why the other argument may be wrong.

Personally I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that Dougie was wrong, and we are not part of a giant organic computer run by mice to determine the question to the answer of 42. Prove to me we are not a mice run experiment!! ;D

 

[evo]

Arguing the absence of something is nearly impossible, which is why much of this discussion goes around in circles. Both sides are trying to prove they are right by showing why the other argument may be wrong.

Typical soft post by you. ;D

 

[Disco08]

Christian Apologetics = using this evidence to make a case for Faith in the Bible as God's Word. They don't make up the evidence.

That's not true. I've seen a number of cases where an apologetics website will present 'evidence' as fact to its readers only to have someone with actual expertise in the area point out how poor their evidence actually is. It's this type of disingenuous behaviour that gives these sites a poor reputation IMO.

66 books written at different times by different people in different styles over 2000 years. All with a common theme. We now call it the Bible.

I wouldn't say the theme is all that common. In some books God can't wait to tell his followers how best to slaughter women and children and then in others He's preaching love and forgiveness. The change of heart does really seem odd when you consider it is coming from a being who transcends time.

Extra-Biblical references to people/events mentioned in the Bible.

The only references to the important stuff, ie Jesus existence and the validity of his claim that He was the Son Of God are very light in number and dubious in authenticity. Apologetics propagandists are very eager, for example, to tell you that Josephus' work is clearly evidence for Jesus' existence. What they routinely fail to mention is that most experts believe the passages in question to be at least a partial forgery. They also fail to mention that Josephus wrote in great detail over many pages about any number of trivial matters, yet when it comes to describing the Son Of God himself, it's written in a style comepletely different to Josephus' usual work and all over in a couple of lines. Why do you think these propagandists refuse to present all the evidence for their readers?

Archaeological findings (200 years of them)

What archaeological findings have their been that provide any evidence whatsoever that God exists, Jesus existed or that He was who He said He was?

The cosmological argument (where did we come from?)

Despite all the evidence which supports evolution?

The teleological argument (why all the order?)

Because this is the way life has developed.

The argument from morality (what is man?)

In what capacity is this an argument?

The fine-tuning argument (the anthropic principle?)

This is a ridiculous argument. If the conditions of this universe were different a different result would have occurred. Life has adapted to thrive, thanks to natural selection, in the environment at hand. Nature is full of examples that show how creatures have had to evolve to better survive in their environment (remember the koala's caruncle?). If the universe was created specifically for them, why would this be the case and why would so many species now be extinct?

 

[Tiger74]

Typical soft post by you. ;D

Its the old tiger repellant argument. My mobile phone keeps tigers away, and as there are no tigers around me, it must be true.

I'm still waiting for my proof that mice are not running the world by the way ;D

 

[tigertime2]

Its the old tiger repellant argument. My mobile phone keeps tigers away, and as there are no tigers around me, it must be true.

I'm still waiting for my proof that mice are not running the world by the way ;D

it takes more faith than I have to believe in evolution as the beginning of things. so i suppose anything is possible if you believe in evolution

 

[Djevv]

That's not true. I've seen a number of cases where an apologetics website will present 'evidence' as fact to its readers only to have someone with actual expertise in the area point out how poor their evidence actually is. It's this type of disingenuous behaviour that gives these sites a poor reputation IMO.

I wouldn't say the theme is all that common. In some books God can't wait to tell his followers how best to slaughter women and children and then in others He's preaching love and forgiveness. The change of heart does really seem odd when you consider it is coming from a being who transcends time.

The only references to the important stuff, ie Jesus existence and the validity of his claim that He was the Son Of God are very light in number and dubious in authenticity. Apologetics propagandists are very eager, for example, to tell you that Josephus' work is clearly evidence for Jesus' existence. What they routinely fail to mention is that most experts believe the passages in question to be at least a partial forgery. They also fail to mention that Josephus wrote in great detail over many pages about any number of trivial matters, yet when it comes to describing the Son Of God himself, it's written in a style comepletely different to Josephus' usual work and all over in a couple of lines. Why do you think these propagandists refuse to present all the evidence for their readers?

What archaeological findings have their been that provide any evidence whatsoever that God exists, Jesus existed or that He was who He said He was?

Despite all the evidence which supports evolution?

Because this is the way life has developed.

In what capacity is this an argument?

This is a ridiculous argument. If the conditions of this universe were different a different result would have occurred. Life has adapted to thrive, thanks to natural selection, in the environment at hand. Nature is full of examples that show how creatures have had to evolve to better survive in their environment (remember the koala's caruncle?). If the universe was created specifically for them, why would this be the case and why would so many species now be extinct?

Did I mention that skeptics have their own spin on the evidence? ;D

BTW Disco, I'm not having a swipe at you, thanks for taking the time to reply, I just think we have done a lot of this stuff already .

 

[Tiger74]

it takes more faith than I have to believe in evolution as the beginning of things. so i suppose anything is possible if you believe in evolution

And it takes more faith for me to believe a magic man appeared out of nothing, and created a sub-serviant slave race to worship for all time. Each to their own.

 

[Disco08]

it takes more faith than I have to believe in evolution as the beginning of things. so i suppose anything is possible if you believe in evolution

Of course it does. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life.

How much do you know about evolution tigertime?

 

[tigertime2]

Did I mention that skeptics have their own spin on the evidence? ;D

Yes, your not kidding.

Did I tell you I once spoke to the former head of the Australian Skeptics society, who had just taken up a position at Camberidge University. He changed his view that God was real and the bible was true.