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

Atheists praying

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

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    But you're ignoring the vast numbers of people who were living miserable lives, declared God is dead, and became better people!
    Like me...
    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 seer View Post
      I will keep an eye out for them, there must be at least one. In all seriousness, probably a good third of my church is populated with addicts (of every sort), drunks, former atheists and criminals, who today live exemplary lives. And yes I put atheists in the category of criminal.
      Really? Why?
      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 element771 View Post
        The quantitative comparison of body count between religious and non-religious societies doesn't speak towards the truth of said religion. However, if you want to go with body count...lets entertain that.

        Pol Pot: 1 - 3 million
        Hitler: 15 - 20 million
        Stalin: 20 - 25 million
        Mao Zedong: 40 - 70 million

        Total: 76 - 118 million people

        Can you come up with a religious body count that is "on par" with roughly 100 million?
        That would be difficult. While there are still religious conflicts, they are typically more regional and smaller. True, large-scale religious conflicts began tapering off around the time of the enlightenment. Meanwhile, world population has constantly trended upwards, so the 20th century saw the most opportunity for large numbers because there were literally more people to be killed. The 1900s began with about 1.65B people in the world and ended with about 6B. 100 million in that century represented 1.7% of the world population at the end of the century, and 6% at the beginning. By comparison, 100 million people killed in 1700 would represent between 14.3% and 16.7% of the world population. In 1000, low estimate for world population is 254M. In 1300, the high estimate is 432M. 100 Million people would be between and 23.1% and 39.4% of the world's population in that period. It would be very hard for a menaingful comparison to be made using raw numbers given those shifts. Percentages would be better.

        There is also the entire problem of trying to sort of "religious wars" from all other wars. We humans do not really do anything cleanly. In the "Encyclopedia of Wars," 1763 wars are documented, only 123 of which are classified as "religious wars." But the conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish is not on most lists, because it is classified as a territorial war or war of acquisition, not a religious one, though it had significant religious overtones.

        Bottom line, I don't think any of us can answer the question as asked. It remains true that the dominant causes of war are economic, territorial, religion, nationalism, revenge, civil unrest, revolution (separation), and defensive/pre-emptive. Religion, in other words, is just one of the many reasons people justify going to war.
        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 Adrift View Post
          Do you have a source on that, or know where I can find it? That's pretty surprising.
          Nagel speaks directly to the issue in Public Education and Intelligent Design, published after the Kitzmiller decision in which he weighed in in support of the defense, and in so doing made himself a darling of the creationism movement.

          Here's an excerpt for those without jstor access.
          To ask whether there are limits to what can credibly be explained by a given type of scientific theory, or any theory relying only on universal physical laws, is itself a scientific question. An answer to the question that asserts such limits on the basis of empirical evidence is still a scientific claim, even if it also proposes an alternative cause whose internal operation is not governed by the kind of natural of law that science can investigate. I suspect that the assumption that science can never provide evidence for the occurrence of something that cannot be scientifically explained is the principle reason for the belief that ID cannot be science; but so far as I can see, that assumption is without merit.

          Nagel's proposed redefinition of science served as inspiration for Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller.
          Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

          A Yes.

          Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

          A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

          It's fair to say these are fringe views.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Do you have a source on that, or know where I can find it? That's pretty surprising.
            Check this out....

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-he...article/707692

            Basically he was one of them until he came out as sympathetic to ID and then the atheists (at least at this meeting, turned on him and started calling him names).

            I know it is a conservative leaning mag but they do that the direct quotes and I have seen this other places.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Nagel speaks directly to the issue in Public Education and Intelligent Design, published after the Kitzmiller decision in which he weighed in in support of the defense, and in so doing made himself a darling of the creationism movement.

              Here's an excerpt for those without jstor access.
              To ask whether there are limits to what can credibly be explained by a given type of scientific theory, or any theory relying only on universal physical laws, is itself a scientific question. An answer to the question that asserts such limits on the basis of empirical evidence is still a scientific claim, even if it also proposes an alternative cause whose internal operation is not governed by the kind of natural of law that science can investigate. I suspect that the assumption that science can never provide evidence for the occurrence of something that cannot be scientifically explained is the principle reason for the belief that ID cannot be science; but so far as I can see, that assumption is without merit.

              Nagel's proposed redefinition of science served as inspiration for Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller.
              Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

              A Yes.

              Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

              A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

              It's fair to say these are fringe views.
              Ah, that's not at all what I thought you were saying. I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with what Nagel himself stated. I'd be surprised to find that Nagel is alone in the views he expressed in philosophy of science circles.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                But as scientific and philosophical competency increases, the proportion of atheists also increases to over 90 percent in the National Academy, and the remnant theists have highly nuanced views of divinity.
                I am not surprised by this. Everyone that I have met that was in the national academy is very arrogant.

                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                His fame, in Christian circles, is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers.
                I don't think that this is fair or true. There are a number of prominent Christian philosophers and scientists. Not all of them where their world view on their sleeves. Also, I have noticed that the incoming graduate students into our doctoral program are more religious on average.

                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Unless you're Francis Collins, in which case you're despised for supporting that evillusion stuff. Entirely by coincidence, I'm sure, the proportion of biologists who are atheists is higher than in any other field. It's not as if Christians were deliberately driving them out of their churches. Nah, that couldn't be it.
                Maybe but I again wonder what is the cause of that. Some biologists that I talk to basically hold Darwin to some divine level complete with celebrations. I don't get it as we don't celebrate any other scientists in that way.

                Just look at Dawkins....He attempts to apply Neo-Darwinian evolution to essentially every field he talks about from cosmology (multiverse theory is like Darwinian evolution for physics) to metaphysics (God had to evolve from something more simple). It is madness.

                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Nagel doesn't speak for any but the smallest fringe of scientists. He certainly doesn't speak for me.
                I don't really know how you would know he speaks for other than yourself.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                  Check this out....

                  http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-he...article/707692

                  Basically he was one of them until he came out as sympathetic to ID and then the atheists (at least at this meeting, turned on him and started calling him names).

                  I know it is a conservative leaning mag but they do that the direct quotes and I have seen this other places.
                  Interesting. Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                    Check this out....

                    http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-he...article/707692

                    Basically he was one of them until he came out as sympathetic to ID and then the atheists (at least at this meeting, turned on him and started calling him names).
                    Scientists put up with philosophers. Let's not pretend they think any philosopher is considered "one of them" until they're published as a scientist as well. Non-scientists arguing that science should be open to supernatural causes will suffer the natural consequences.

                    I know it is a conservative leaning mag but they do that the direct quotes and I have seen this other places.
                    Direct quotes interspersed with invidious language and raw, red meat for creationists.

                    You're okay with that?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Scientists put up with philosophers. Let's not pretend they think any philosopher is considered "one of them" until they're published as a scientist as well. Non-scientists arguing that science should be open to supernatural causes will suffer the natural consequences.
                      They put up with philosophers who agree with them (e.g. Daniel Dennett). Isn't Dennett one of the four horsemen?

                      While I do not agree that any philosopher should argue that, I don't necessarily see any (that is taken seriously) argue that.


                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Direct quotes interspersed with invidious language and raw, red meat for creationists.

                      You're okay with that?
                      I didn't advocate the article because of the raw meat...just the way they treated him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                        I am not surprised by this. Everyone that I have met that was in the national academy is very arrogant.
                        I'm entirely sure you will find no one in the Academy who believes they have a personal relationship with the creator of the macro-cosmic universe, a position that any objective observer would admit limits the effectiveness of any accusation of arrogance directed outwards.

                        I don't think that this is fair or true. There are a number of prominent Christian philosophers and scientists. Not all of them where their world view on their sleeves. Also, I have noticed that the incoming graduate students into our doctoral program are more religious on average.
                        I've seen a dentist lauded for his scientific credentials at a creationist seminar.

                        "A number of prominent ..."

                        "... into our doctoral program ..."

                        I'd imagine that kind of argument works better in a church than when addressing a mathematician. You might want to note that this isn't a church.

                        Maybe but I again wonder what is the cause of that. Some biologists that I talk to basically hold Darwin to some divine level complete with celebrations. I don't get it as we don't celebrate any other scientists in that way.
                        Sure we do.

                        Physicists, Newton, mut. mut.

                        Mathematicians, Gauss ... oh wait, that's totally justified.

                        I think Darwin is overrated, not because his work wasn't transformative of the entire field of biology, which it was, but because his conclusions were so obvious that a naturalist so ill-trained he couldn't tell he was looking at different species of finches could make the discovery.

                        It's not as if every organism known to mankind wasn't created by reproduction.

                        Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, is said to have quipped that the theory was so obvious, once articulated, that he was surprised he didn't think of it himself.

                        Just look at Dawkins....He attempts to apply Neo-Darwinian evolution to essentially every field he talks about from cosmology (multiverse theory is like Darwinian evolution for physics) to metaphysics (God had to evolve from something more simple). It is madness.
                        Derivative of Dennett, who sees the evolutionary paradigm as a universal solvent. He makes a much better case for it than Dawkins.

                        But there's no abuse of biological principles by Dawkins outside his field that isn't recreated more egregiously by W.L. Craig in his role as a philosopher qua professional apologist, e.g., his expositions on the the algebra of the infinite are simply cringe-inducing to anyone who's engaged in transfinite studies.

                        But, because he's a Christian, he gets a pass.

                        I don't really know how you would know [whom] he speaks for other than yourself.
                        I have colleagues, and ears.

                        Originally posted by element771 View Post
                        They put up with philosophers who agree with them (e.g. Daniel Dennett). Isn't Dennett one of the four horsemen?

                        While I do not agree that any philosopher should argue that, I don't necessarily see any (that is taken seriously) argue that.
                        Nagel's position on science redefined to admit the supernatural is appropriately pilloried by Christians, too. Let's not pretend this is just an atheistic phenomena.

                        Philosophers should interact with science, if only to avoid justifying Hawking's observation.
                        “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

                        Nagel has not kept up with modern developments in science.

                        I didn't advocate the article because of the raw meat...just the way they treated him.
                        You're willing to overlook the egregious partisanship of the authors of the article because they're sympathetic to Nagel's plight.

                        I'm not, and I'm not sympathetic to Nagel either, because if we don't push back at the lunatics on the fringe, the fringe will take over, which may be merely unfortunate in the political sphere, e.g., conservatives expelled from the Republican party in its recent conspiratorial lurch, but would sound the death knell for science.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          I'm entirely sure you will find no one in the Academy who believes they have a personal relationship with the creator of the macro-cosmic universe, a position that any objective observer would admit limits the effectiveness of any accusation of arrogance directed outwards.
                          I take it you don't know anyone in the academy. Either way, it doesn't matter in the end.


                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          I've seen a dentist lauded for his scientific credentials at a creationist seminar.

                          "A number of prominent ..."

                          "... into our doctoral program ..."

                          I'd imagine that kind of argument works better in a church than when addressing a mathematician. You might want to note that this isn't a church.
                          A dentist?!? How does this say counter my claim that there are prominent scientists that are also Christians?


                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          Sure we do.

                          Physicists, Newton, mut. mut.

                          Mathematicians, Gauss ... oh wait, that's totally justified.
                          I have yet to see any posters for another scientist's special day. I have never seen an all day seminar series for any other scientist.

                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          I think Darwin is overrated, not because his work wasn't transformative of the entire field of biology, which it was, but because his conclusions were so obvious that a naturalist so ill-trained he couldn't tell he was looking at different species of finches could make the discovery.

                          It's not as if every organism known to mankind wasn't created by reproduction.

                          Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, is said to have quipped that the theory was so obvious, once articulated, that he was surprised he didn't think of it himself.
                          Heresy!


                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          Derivative of Dennett, who sees the evolutionary paradigm as a universal solvent. He makes a much better case for it than Dawkins.
                          Dennett? The philosopher who thinks that consciousness is an illusion? Yet, he continues to go around being lead by this illusion to go and tell other people that they should also think the one thing that they experience most directly is an illusion. Seems legit.

                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          But there's no abuse of biological principles by Dawkins outside his field that isn't recreated more egregiously by W.L. Craig in his role as a philosopher qua professional apologist, e.g., his expositions on the the algebra of the infinite are simply cringe-inducing to anyone who's engaged in transfinite studies.

                          But, because he's a Christian, he gets a pass.
                          1. I would love to hear your arguments about Craig's commentary about this.

                          2. Vilenkin informed Craig that while he didn't agree with his conclusions, WLC represented his research fairly and accurately.

                          3. Dawkins makes hilariously embarrassing errors in philosophy and cosmology. It isn't like I am the only one who notices this. He should be embarrassed but he isn't because he doesn't even know any better.

                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          I have colleagues, and ears.
                          Anecdotal. It doesn't follow that hardly anyone holds this view. Also, who would actually admit it? It is basically saying that you don't have a good reason, you just don't like it.


                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          Nagel's position on science redefined to admit the supernatural is appropriately pilloried by Christians, too. Let's not pretend this is just an atheistic phenomena.
                          I know that...I am also one of those Christians.

                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          Nagel has not kept up with modern developments in science.
                          According to who? You can't just make that judgment with nothing backing it up. You make this assertion because you don't agree with it.

                          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                          You're willing to overlook the egregious partisanship of the authors of the article because they're sympathetic to Nagel's plight.
                          I am sympathetic to his plight, not because I think ID should be allowed into science....but because stifling ideas in this way causes scientists to play it safe. You shouldn't be attacked for a belief that you have that doesn't agree with others.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            1. Religions don't "have actions", people do.

                            2. Who cares what your randomly evolved moral opinion is, anyway?
                            Nothing in the science of evolution is random.
                            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 shunyadragon View Post
                              Nothing in the science of evolution is random.
                              Umm....mutation is...
                              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 element771 View Post
                                I take it you don't know anyone in the academy. Either way, it doesn't matter in the end.
                                There are logs, and splinters, but no matter how many you care to lodge, there's infinitely more room in Hilbert's hotel. Believing oneself so special that the creator of the universe wants a personal relationship with them, forever, can't be compared with any mere mortal arrogance.

                                The fact that Christians don't see this is the only reason the accusation of arrogance continues to be directed toward non-theists. Good luck on the living forever thing, but in the meantime, it'd be nice if you'd scratch that particular, poorly aimed barb from the armory.

                                A dentist?!? How does this say counter my claim that there are prominent scientists that are also Christians?
                                The dentist was a case in point.

                                How does your claim that "there are prominent scientists who are Christians" counter my claim, to which you were ostensibly responding, that "Nagel's fame, in Christian circles, is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers."

                                It doesn't, and I wasn't willing to follow your deflection, and even less willing to follow a deflection based on bad math. Anecdotes. Really.

                                I have yet to see any posters for another scientist's special day. I have never seen an all day seminar series for any other scientist.
                                Nor have I seen entire Christian denominations unite in pillorying one scientist for over a century after his death. Let him have his day, and his defenders.

                                Heresy!
                                Please. It's not like I said I'm giving up coffee.

                                Dennett? The philosopher who thinks that consciousness is an illusion? Yet, he continues to go around being lead by this illusion to go and tell other people that they should also think the one thing that they experience most directly is an illusion. Seems legit.
                                Seems more Hindu to me.

                                1. I would love to hear your arguments about Craig's commentary about this.
                                We're only 160 posts in. I'm not sure I can justify a full scale thread derailment this soon.

                                2. Vilenkin informed Craig that while he didn't agree with his conclusions, WLC represented his research fairly and accurately.
                                Craig also cited Hilbert's claim there was no place for the infinite in reality as an argument against an actual infinite, as if Hilbert wouldn't have said the same about the number two, and as if Craig wasn't arguing for the actual existence of his infinite God.

                                Cringe-worthy.

                                Let's not even start on his naive claims that you can't perform subtraction or division of infinite cardinals, and his seeming innocence, when speaking as a professional apologist, of the very concept of inequivalent cardinals, the continuum, or the lack of a largest cardinal to model the theologians' supposedly infinite God.

                                3. Dawkins makes hilariously embarrassing errors in philosophy and cosmology. It isn't like I am the only one who notices this. He should be embarrassed but he isn't because he doesn't even know any better.
                                It's a mistake to read Dawkins for anything more than his biology, and a larger mistake to credit arguments from commentators like Alister McGrath as less embarrassing. But he's a Christian fighting the righteous fight against the evil Dawkins, so he gets a pass, too.

                                Anecdotal.
                                I'm capable of intentional irony.

                                It doesn't follow that hardly anyone holds this view. Also, who would actually admit it? It is basically saying that you don't have a good reason, you just don't like it.
                                The view in question is the applicability of supernatural causes to scientific investigation. I don't need a survey to know that's an absurd, fringe position. Suggesting I don't like the view is both wrong, and irrelevant.



                                I know that...I am also one of those Christians.
                                I'll give you a pass anyway.

                                According to who? You can't just make that judgment with nothing backing it up. You make this assertion because you don't agree with it.
                                *to whom

                                You're impugning my motives because you don't agree with me.

                                I am sympathetic to his plight, not because I think ID should be allowed into science....but because stifling ideas in this way causes scientists to play it safe. You shouldn't be attacked for a belief that you have that doesn't agree with others.
                                I think Christianity should be redefined to accept the inclusion of a mortal Jesus.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                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
                                411 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