Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    This would be a good start point: Alexanders Isthmus
    Shunyadragon's claim that the fortress area survived seems valid. His claim that the city survived doesn't.
    History records that Alexander did not completely destroy the city and it was rebuilt and continuously occupied since including the Romans because it was an important Seaport.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      I see two possibilities for the origin of everything: It was created by an uncreated being, or the whole mess just is what is.
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      So you choose to believe in a self existent universe rather than a self existent creator.
      I'm not quite clear if you're assuming our universe is right at the start of the causal chain?

      Are you saying the two options are:
      Nothing -> Our universe (self-existent)
      Nothing -> God (self-existent) -> Our universe (created)

      Because I would see the most likely situation as being:
      Nothing -> The first thing (self-existent) -> some other stuff -> more stuff -> possibly some sort of intelligent beings develop -> more stuff -> lots more stuff -> lots more intelligent beings -> more stuff -> lots of universes happen by accident or through random processes or get made -> more intelligent beings -> more stuff -> more universes -> .... -> our universe (we are here)

      So there are two different questions that can be asked:
      1. Was the immediate cause of our universe an intelligent being (e.g. an alien scientist, a computer programmer, etc, deliberately causing our universe with specific settings etc), or was it a random natural event (e.g. a black hole forming in another universe which spewed matter forth into this one which is 'inside' the black hole, or a quantum fluctuation in the quantum ether which exploded etc), or even an unintentional mistake of an intelligent being (e.g. someone fired a particle accelerator in another universe and the collision produced a sub-universe)?
      2. Was the first cause of everything that exists an intelligent being? (that being need have zero whatsoever to do with our universe)

      I would say that the answer to #2 is almost certainly "no" because the first cause must be 'simple' rather than composed of multiple arbitrary parts, and intelligence both in humans and computers is about having vast amounts of interactive parts, because thoughts and memory and rationality is about linking together ideas and categorizing things etc. The answer to #1 is that we really have no idea and no evidence that would let us separate purposeful creation from accidental creation from natural occurrence. I'm quite partial to the idea that we're all in a fully-immersive massively multiplayer computer game (and think the probabilistic argument for that view is pretty compelling simply because the number of in-game lives that the average computer gamer lives (lots and lots and lots) is so much higher than the number of real lives they live (one)), so that would say that the immediate cause of our universe is computer programmers, but they wouldn't be the First Cause.

      But I object to your implication, which seems to me to be fairly common among Christians, that whatever force or being created our universe must be the same force or being that was the First Cause. That seems incredibly incredibly unlikely to me, and seems to presuppose that we are right at the start of the causal chain of things.
      Last edited by Starlight; 01-13-2018, 04:33 AM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        No! My point is there is no real evidence one way or the other, the best available evidence does not exist at all.
        I think you perhaps confuse "evidence" with "proof." Evidence exists, though I admit that most of it would be considered "circumstantial" if this was a court of law. And like all evidence, how it is interpreted is a factor.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        What evidence brings you down on the atheist side?
        I provided a list of some of it in my response. Generally speaking, the patterns of history, the discovieries of science, and the state of religions.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I would guess that it is actually the lack of solid evidence for the reality of God.
        Yes, that is also a factor. But then, when discussing the supernatural, there is a lack of "solid" evidence on both sides, by the very nature of the discussion.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        If you have any real evidence I would love to hear it, what is your "best available evidence?"
        See above.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        So you choose to believe in a self existent universe rather than a self existent creator.
        First, I do not experience belief as a choice. I cannot choose what is true. I experience belief as an acknowledgment. I do not choose to believe the sun will rise; I simply do on the basis of the evidence. I do not choose to believe 2+2=4, I simply do. I recognize it's truth. Likewise, I di dnot choose to be atheist. Indeed, when I set out on my journey of discovery, the intent was quite the opposite; to seek out deception in my life and any other obstacle to my relationship with the god that I loved. That I eventually ended up atheist was something of a surprise to me - I was not expecting it and I was not seeking it.

        As for your assumption about my beliefs, I do not necessarily lean to a self-existent universe because we currently do not know what lies beyond the "big bang." Our physics cannot see past that point. There are multiple models and quantum physics is adding new insights on a regular basis. However, I see no reason to add a "creator" to the mix until there is cause to do so.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I did not suggest that you used the term designed to refer to the creation (I use creation in this case simply to include what ever exists - multiverse or what ever. There is no need to think of it as requiring a creator.) I only pointed out that is does appear to be designed as even Dawkins admits.
        Although the denotation of the word "design" does not necessitate a designer, the connotation typically includes that concept. Sentient beings design things. If the universe is designed, there is an implication that a designer must be involved - though no specifics on the nature off this designer. "Order" does not carry that connotation, so I tend to use "order" rather than "design."

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I will try to deal with "I think the patterns of history point clearly to religion as a human invention, . . . " separately.
        I look forward to it, as long as we can keep the discussion civil. I enjoy these exchanges, Jedidiah, but I have to admit I do not enjoy the pejoratives that typically show up somewhere along the line.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-13-2018, 11:24 AM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          The thrust of history:

          Carpedm said “I think the patterns of history point clearly to religion as a human invention, . . . “ he added the reason religion was invented. I want to look at another possibility.

          If (suspended belief if you are able) the God of the Bible is actually the creator of all, how would that show up in history? If the creation is even remotely accurate (to the degree that it happened at all) the original humans would have had stories to tell to their children and grandchildren. Those stories, since history was not yet invented, would have been somewhat distorted and inaccurate. Over a long period of time it is easy to see how the wildly differing religions of the earth came to be. These beliefs could well have been used to “ 1) answer the question "why," 2) answer the question "what comes after?" and 3) provide an answer to the unknown.” It is also easy to see how these distortions (as well as the truthe) could also serve to provide a means for encoding moral codes and attributing them to an authority.

          Since this is possible (unless you decide in advance that it is not) history does not show us any evidence for or against the reality of a creator god.
          This is an interesting thought experiment. First of all, I think we start from different starting positions. I do not accept the OT mythology about creation as fact. I accept it as mythology. Most of its claims simply do not match what we now know about the origins of the universe. And it is too similar to other origin stories from other belief systems. So I cannot go down the road of starting with those claims as factual (if that is what you meant).

          If the Christian god does exist, and I ask myself how that would appear in history, I have to acknowledge that the scenario you paint is possible, but it strikes me as highly improbable. I am also curious about the claim here that stories can be distorted over time, when the claim in other places (I am not sure if they were made by you) is that oral traditions of that period can be trusted because stories were reliably handed down from generation to generation without flaw, as a collective communal memory.

          One of the key pieces of evidence that leads me to atheism is the difference I see between theology and science; the former tends to disunity, whereas the latter tends to unity. Over time, religions have shown a continuous pattern of fracture - some more than others. This is easily explanable if there is no underlying reality to bind them. Science, on the other hand, tends to unity. It has a methodology for taking a proposition, testing it, verifying it if it aligns with reality, and falsifying it if it does not. Over time, propositions are either discarded, or they become part of a canon of beliefs and are built on. Every now and then, new evidence causes us to re-examine canonical beliefs, and the "tree of knowledge" (if you will forgive the pun) is pruned of an errant branch. Science recognizes that knowledge cannot be perfect and constantly questions itself.

          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          Lets look at the nature of religious explanations for the world. With a very few exceptions the creation myths of the world include a universe that is already there, with gods who are mostly super deluxe human beings. The Greek, Roman, and Nordic gods are a fine example of this. Look at the Navajo stories of origins, there is already something there and it is modified by the “creators.”

          The Judeo – Christian tradition begins with nothing but God. He then creates everything. A big difference. Few others actually see this.
          Christianity is not unique here. Ex nihilo creation stories existed in ancient egypt, and others include the myths of Ngai, Mbombo, and Popol Vuh, to name a few. You are correct, however, that Christianity/Judaism/Islam are the three most widespread religions with Ex nihilo creation myths. The others are very small or obsolete religious belief systems.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I think you perhaps confuse "evidence" with "proof." Evidence exists, though I admit that most of it would be considered "circumstantial" if this was a court of law. And like all evidence, how it is interpreted is a factor.
            No, I originally intended to use either the word scientific, or the word objective, but opted not to do so.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I provided a list of some of it in my response. Generally speaking, the patterns of history, the discovieries of science, and the state of religions.
            I discussed the patterns of history and the state of religions in my next post. Can you spell out some of these "discovieries of science" that you see as evidence?

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Yes, that is also a factor. But then, when discussing the supernatural, there is a lack of "solid" evidence on both sides, by the very nature of the discussion.
            Which was the very point of my post.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            First, I do not experience belief as a choice. I cannot choose what is true. I experience belief as an acknowledgment. I do not choose to believe the sun will rise; I simply do on the basis of the evidence. I do not choose to believe 2+2=4, I simply do. I recognize it's truth. Likewise, I di dnot choose to be atheist. Indeed, when I set out on my journey of discovery, the intent was quite the opposite; to seek out deception in my life and any other obstacle to my relationship with the god that I loved. That I eventually ended up atheist was something of a surprise to me - I was not expecting it and I was not seeking it.
            I agree with this entirely. In the same way as you describe, I was a bit surprised to find myself as a Christian. I spent a lot of effort trying to find "Truth." I never anticipated finding Truth was a person, Jesus.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            As for your assumption about my beliefs, I do not necessarily lean to a self-existent universe because we currently do not know what lies beyond the "big bang." Our physics cannot see past that point. There are multiple models and quantum physics is adding new insights on a regular basis. However, I see no reason to add a "creator" to the mix until there is cause to do so.
            By universe I mean to include everything, as I think I have said in other posts, not just what we currently see. What is/was beyond the "big bang" is a part of the universe as I used the term. Sorry I did not make that clear in this specific post. Quantum physics is a part of the whole thing. Where did the whole thing come from? All I have seen so far is vague suggestions of possibilities with no supporting evidence.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Although the denotation of the word "design" does not necessitate a designer, the connotation typically includes that concept. Sentient beings design things. If the universe is designed, there is an implication that a designer must be involved - though no specifics on the nature off this designer. "Order" does not carry that connotation, so I tend to use "order" rather than "design."
            This seems to me to be no more than a word game. Rejecting the appearance of design is prejudgement. I was only pointing out that Dawkins admitted to an appearance of design. From a neutral ground it does appear to be designed, and people have long seen it that way.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              No, I originally intended to use either the word scientific, or the word objective, but opted not to do so.
              A good thing. Science can say nothing about the supernatural, by definition. And given that the available evidence is, IMO, circumstantial, "objective" would not apply.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              I discussed the patterns of history and the state of religions in my next post. Can you spell out some of these "discovieries of science" that you see as evidence.
              It is not specific discoveries that provides evidence for me, Jedidiah; it is, again, the pattern I see. Over time, religious explanations for phenomena seem to continuously give way to naturalistic ones, as we learn more and more about our universe and how it operates. This pattern informs me. It suggests that religions serve as a placeholder for things we do not understand, until we do.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              Which was the very point of my post.
              Then on this we are in agreement.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              I agree with this entirely. In the same way as you describe, I was a bit surprised to find myself as a Christian. I spent a lot of effort trying to find "Truth." I never anticipated finding Truth was a person, Jesus.
              It appears we have trod a similar road - but in opposite directions.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              By universe I mean to include everything, as I think I have said in other posts, not just what we currently see. What is/was beyond the "big bang" is a part of the universe as I used the term. Sorry I did not make that clear in this specific post. Quantum physics is a part of the whole thing. Where did the whole thing come from? All I have seen so far is vague suggestions of possibilities with no supporting evidence.
              Accepting your definition, the concept of vague possibilities without supporting evidence does not frighten me, Jedidiah. I am ok with "I don't know." Science does not provide me with the answer to everything, nor do I think it ever can. For the origins of the universe, I do think, eventually, science will provide an answer. It may not be in my lifetime. Until then, I can live with "I don't know." I do not feel compelled to fill that gap with gods.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              This seems to me to be no more than a word game. Rejecting the appearance of design is prejudgement. I was only pointing out that Dawkins admitted to an appearance of design. From a neutral ground it does appear to be designed, and people have long seen it that way.
              It may be a word game to you, Jedidiah, but it is not to me. Using the word "design" (to me) presupposes a conclusion. I concur that the universe exhibits order. I do not believe that order requires a designer or an "orderer." We see many naturalistic, thoughtless, processes that impose order. Chaos theory shows that order can be found in even the most chaotic of processes. To assume an ordered/designer is, IMO, to assume the conclusion to make the argument.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                History records that Alexander did not completely destroy the city and it was rebuilt and continuously occupied since including the Romans because it was an important Seaport.
                References, please? And I found this picture of the siege of Tyre, which shows substantially greater extent of the island.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • I started this a few hours ago but got interrupted.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  This is an interesting thought experiment. First of all, I think we start from different starting positions. I do not accept the OT mythology about creation as fact. I accept it as mythology. Most of its claims simply do not match what we now know about the origins of the universe. And it is too similar to other origin stories from other belief systems. So I cannot go down the road of starting with those claims as factual (if that is what you meant).
                  No, I am asking for actual suspension of belief. The key word is IF. I am using this as a means of eliminating subsequent information from having a role. Simply for the sake of argument accept the God of the Bible. It does not carry any weight in what you actually believe. My argument simply has to look at this as a possible reality, nothing more.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  If the Christian god does exist, and I ask myself how that would appear in history, I have to acknowledge that the scenario you paint is possible, but it strikes me as highly improbable. I am also curious about the claim here that stories can be distorted over time, when the claim in other places (I am not sure if they were made by you) is that oral traditions of that period can be trusted because stories were reliably handed down from generation to generation without flaw, as a collective communal memory.
                  You are not playing strictly by the rules here. It is only improbable when you bring in judgments made outside the accepted (for only argument purposes remember) assumptions. If a creator really is not a part of the creation there can be no scientific or objective evidence to point to Him/It. So why is my scenario improbable staying within the assumptions I have made. Remember, you are not bound by working within my assumptions, but when you go outside you are using prejudgements.

                  About stories being distorted or not. Both can well be the case. Several societies have oral traditions with the ability to preserve them extremely accurate. This would not have been the case in early societies as it is not so now in many. Thus this is no valid objection.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  One of the key pieces of evidence that leads me to atheism is the difference I see between theology and science; the former tends to disunity, whereas the latter tends to unity. Over time, religions have shown a continuous pattern of fracture - some more than others. This is easily explanable if there is no underlying reality to bind them. Science, on the other hand, tends to unity. It has a methodology for taking a proposition, testing it, verifying it if it aligns with reality, and falsifying it if it does not. Over time, propositions are either discarded, or they become part of a canon of beliefs and are built on. Every now and then, new evidence causes us to re-examine canonical beliefs, and the "tree of knowledge" (if you will forgive the pun) is pruned of an errant branch. Science recognizes that knowledge cannot be perfect and constantly questions itself.
                  Religion leading to disunity does not seem, within my given assumptions, to be any real objection. With the separation of groups and independent development of ideas why would you expect anything else? Same with the continuous fracture in some cases. This is easily explainable if there is no underlying reality to bind them, or if the majority of religions have no connection to the underlying reality. Within Christianity there is an interesting example. All mainstream “orthodox” Christian groups agree on all but peripheral issues. Unorthodox groups are all over the place. This seems to me to support orthodoxy. Regardless we have to keep in mind that this God is not a part of the totality of our universe and is thus not available for scientific testing. Once again you are bringing in outside ideas and assumptions.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Christianity is not unique here. Ex nihilo creation stories existed in ancient egypt, and others include the myths of Ngai, Mbombo, and Popol Vuh, to name a few. You are correct, however, that Christianity/Judaism/Islam are the three most widespread religions with Ex nihilo creation myths. The others are very small or obsolete religious belief systems.
                  This is quite true. But I already admitted that there are a few exceptions, which within my assumptions would be expected.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    It is not specific discoveries that provides evidence for me, Jedidiah; it is, again, the pattern I see. Over time, religious explanations for phenomena seem to continuously give way to naturalistic ones, as we learn more and more about our universe and how it operates. This pattern informs me. It suggests that religions serve as a placeholder for things we do not understand, until we do.
                    Dealt with in my subsequent post.

                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Accepting your definition, the concept of vague possibilities without supporting evidence does not frighten me, Jedidiah. I am ok with "I don't know." Science does not provide me with the answer to everything, nor do I think it ever can. For the origins of the universe, I do think, eventually, science will provide an answer. It may not be in my lifetime. Until then, I can live with "I don't know." I do not feel compelled to fill that gap with gods.
                    I think that we will never have a scientific answer, assuming the unreality of my creator God. We are inside and can by definition not see all there is to know. This is nor relevant in any case.


                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    It may be a word game to you, Jedidiah, but it is not to me. Using the word "design" (to me) presupposes a conclusion. I concur that the universe exhibits order. I do not believe that order requires a designer or an "orderer." We see many naturalistic, thoughtless, processes that impose order. Chaos theory shows that order can be found in even the most chaotic of processes. To assume an ordered/designer is, IMO, to assume the conclusion to make the argument.
                    It seems to me to be a word game because I specified only that it appears to be designed, and cited Dawkins as an example. I do not ask you to see it that way.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      I started this a few hours ago but got interrupted.

                      No, I am asking for actual suspension of belief. The key word is IF. I am using this as a means of eliminating subsequent information from having a role. Simply for the sake of argument accept the God of the Bible. It does not carry any weight in what you actually believe. My argument simply has to look at this as a possible reality, nothing more.
                      When I watch a fantasy movie, I engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, for the sake of the story. That does not mean that I accept it as a possible reality beyond the theater. It simply means that I suspend disbelief for the sake of the story and the experience. I can do the same with the Christian story of creation, Jedidiah, but I cannot make that translate into real life any more than I can make "Harry Potter" translate into real life. I do not mean to be disparaging, but mythological stories of any belief system simply do not translate to real life for me, whether they are Christian, Hindu, or Cherokee.

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      You are not playing strictly by the rules here. It is only improbable when you bring in judgments made outside the accepted (for only argument purposes remember) assumptions. If a creator really is not a part of the creation there can be no scientific or objective evidence to point to Him/It. So why is my scenario improbable staying within the assumptions I have made. Remember, you are not bound by working within my assumptions, but when you go outside you are using prejudgements.
                      Jedidiah, I can accept almost any worldview if I suspend all judgement and simply adopt the preconceptions of the adherents of that worldview. Many (most?) world view are internally consistent if you accept their preconceptions. But that is, after all, the rub. If the preconceptions do not hold true, then accepting them for the sake of argument is not much more than the willing suspension of disbelief I engage in when I go to the theater.It doe snot speak to truth - it speaks to internal consistency.

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      About stories being distorted or not. Both can well be the case. Several societies have oral traditions with the ability to preserve them extremely accurate. This would not have been the case in early societies as it is not so now in many. Thus this is no valid objection.
                      I find this line of argumentation highly selective, Jedidiah. It seems to me that the accuracy of the views is undeniable if they affirm your worldview, and questionable when they do not. Personally, I believe that modern studies about memory, both individual and collective, suggest that such accuracy is simply not possible, individually or collectively.

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Religion leading to disunity does not seem, within my given assumptions, to be any real objection. With the separation of groups and independent development of ideas why would you expect anything else? Same with the continuous fracture in some cases. This is easily explainable if there is no underlying reality to bind them, or if the majority of religions have no connection to the underlying reality. Within Christianity there is an interesting example. All mainstream “orthodox” Christian groups agree on all but peripheral issues. Unorthodox groups are all over the place. This seems to me to support orthodoxy. Regardless we have to keep in mind that this God is not a part of the totality of our universe and is thus not available for scientific testing. Once again you are bringing in outside ideas and assumptions.
                      But then that relies on one defining "orthodoxy" as a group that adheres to a common framework and dismissing those that do not as "unorthodox." It seems to me to be a selective process for affirming a set of preconceived views. Within Christianity, there are over 2500 sects with views ranging widely, from the divinity of Jesus, to the reality of the trinity, to basic moral concepts. Some concepts are more commonly held, and some less commonly held. But as son as some matter of morality of theology becomes a point of dispute, the prospects are high that another fracture will occur and a new sect will emerge. And that is just within Christanity. If the Christian god is real, how on earth is it possible for so many divergent religions to exist? Hinduism. Islam. Judaism. Buddhism. Zoroastrianism. The religions of aboriginal people. Wicca. The list goes on and on and on. If there is one true god, how can so many pepl have such enormously divergent views of what this god is, with little/no hope for reconcilitation - an each religion believing it has "the truth?"

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      This is quite true. But I already admitted that there are a few exceptions, which within my assumptions would be expected.
                      Acknowledged.

                      Jedidiah - I do not begrudge you your beliefs. I simply do not share them, and I do not beleive they reflect what is real; much as I assume you do not believe my beliefs reflect what is real. That does not make either of us a "bad person." It simply means we have examined the available evidence, and come to different conclusions. At the end of the day, setting aside religious views, I suspect we shar emore in common than we do in difference.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        When I watch a fantasy movie, I engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, for the sake of the story. That does not mean that I accept it as a possible reality beyond the theater. It simply means that I suspend disbelief for the sake of the story and the experience. I can do the same with the Christian story of creation, Jedidiah, but I cannot make that translate into real life any more than I can make "Harry Potter" translate into real life. I do not mean to be disparaging, but mythological stories of any belief system simply do not translate to real life for me, whether they are Christian, Hindu, or Cherokee.
                        Good, this is for the sake of the argument, it should not translate into real life.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Jedidiah, I can accept almost any worldview if I suspend all judgement and simply adopt the preconceptions of the adherents of that worldview. Many (most?) world view are internally consistent if you accept their preconceptions. But that is, after all, the rub. If the preconceptions do not hold true, then accepting them for the sake of argument is not much more than the willing suspension of disbelief I engage in when I go to the theater.It doe snot speak to truth - it speaks to internal consistency.



                        I find this line of argumentation highly selective, Jedidiah. It seems to me that the accuracy of the views is undeniable if they affirm your worldview, and questionable when they do not. Personally, I believe that modern studies about memory, both individual and collective, suggest that such accuracy is simply not possible, individually or collectively.



                        But then that relies on one defining "orthodoxy" as a group that adheres to a common framework and dismissing those that do not as "unorthodox." It seems to me to be a selective process for affirming a set of preconceived views. Within Christianity, there are over 2500 sects with views ranging widely, from the divinity of Jesus, to the reality of the trinity, to basic moral concepts. Some concepts are more commonly held, and some less commonly held. But as son as some matter of morality of theology becomes a point of dispute, the prospects are high that another fracture will occur and a new sect will emerge. And that is just within Christanity. If the Christian god is real, how on earth is it possible for so many divergent religions to exist? Hinduism. Islam. Judaism. Buddhism. Zoroastrianism. The religions of aboriginal people. Wicca. The list goes on and on and on. If there is one true god, how can so many pepl have such enormously divergent views of what this god is, with little/no hope for reconcilitation - an each religion believing it has "the truth?"



                        Acknowledged.

                        Jedidiah - I do not begrudge you your beliefs. I simply do not share them, and I do not beleive they reflect what is real; much as I assume you do not believe my beliefs reflect what is real. That does not make either of us a "bad person." It simply means we have examined the available evidence, and come to different conclusions. At the end of the day, setting aside religious views, I suspect we shar emore in common than we do in difference.
                        You were not intended to share my beliefs. You were supposed to argue within a framework. Since it seems you are either not willing or not able to do so, I guess we are finished.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          Good, this is for the sake of the argument, it should not translate into real life.

                          You were not intended to share my beliefs. You were supposed to argue within a framework. Since it seems you are either not willing or not able to do so, I guess we are finished.
                          So you want me to accept the Christian framework, for the sake of argument, and then defend atheism from within it?

                          I'm sorry, Jedidiah, that just makes no sense to me. Or have I missed your intent?
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            So you want me to accept the Christian framework, for the sake of argument, and then defend atheism from within it?

                            I'm sorry, Jedidiah, that just makes no sense to me. Or have I missed your intent?
                            I was simply trying to show that your objections to Christianity (and the reality of a creator God) are based primarily upon preconceptions. You simply showed me those same preconceptions. I was looking for an unbiased look, did not happen.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              I was simply trying to show that your objections to Christianity (and the reality of a creator God) are based primarily upon preconceptions. You simply showed me those same preconceptions. I was looking for an unbiased look, did not happen.
                              I'm not sure, Jedidiah, that any of us is capable of being completely unbiased. And of course my views are based on particular preconceptions, as (I presume) are yours. I acknowledged that your scenario is possible. Indeed, when dealing with the supernatural, it would be difficult to rule out anything as "impossible," except (IMO) what is truly irrational (i.e., a thing simulatenously and in the same way existing and not existing, etc.).

                              But my beliefs are not based on the possible - they are based upon what I assess to be "most probable." Your scenario simply does not strike me as very probable. If the Christian god did exist, I would not expect the state of things to look as they look now.

                              And, for the record, I'm not sure I have "objections" to Christianity. I am simply not Christian. I take no issue with those who are.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I'm not sure, Jedidiah, that any of us is capable of being completely unbiased.
                                Perhaps not, but I know the same history you do, I know the same path of science that you know, and I once had the same general perspective you seem to have. My beliefs, too, are based on what I see as most probable. My scenario seems to me to be at least as likely as yours.

                                I do understand that you are not objecting to Christianity.
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                17 responses
                                68 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X