Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 21 2010 at 13:31

^ And even if it did affect the Theory of Evolution, that would still have nothing to do with Atheism.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 21 2010 at 13:32

true

What?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 22 2010 at 14:39

Badabec

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313

Posted: September 22 2010 at 15:35

Hooooray, we all think in terms of those book-religions. Anybody who cares about the others? Theism is not equal with monotheism. But I guess nobody here gets that.

Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor

- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: September 22 2010 at 19:40

Food for thought, or poo for thought depending on your point of view:
Subject: Hitchens and prayers

Bart --

Those religionists praying for Christopher Hitchens are demonstrating one of the greatest paradoxes
contained within their belief system -- that on the one hand god is omniscient and omnipotent,
but that on the other hand they know better than god and by harassing him long enough they can
get him to change his mind and do what they want him to do, rather than what he's apparently
been doing -- or not doing -- on his own volition.

Hilarious!
Jack in Salem, Oregon

Jack, good point.

By praying for Hitchens, the devout are saying, "Please God, don't murder our friend,"
like you would beg a kidnapper on the phone not to murder your little girl.

Send e-mail to Bart

(This is from bartcop.com, I am not Bartcop.)

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 22 2010 at 19:41

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 22 2010 at 20:14

There's a new book on print

"The Dawkins Delusion"

I believe it's about his campaign to arrest the Pope in London.

The protestors were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 in London according informations, and in a non Roman Catholic country, in Edimburg was worst according to press, the places reserved for protestors were empty and the crowds to cheer the Pope were huge, and largely exceed the expectations..

Thank you Dawkins, your fanatism made the Pope more popular.

Iván

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: September 22 2010 at 20:41

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Thank you Dawkins, your fanatism made the Pope more popular.

Interesting point that you make. Abortion clinics are becoming rarer and rarer in the US. Near the place where I work there is a women's health clinic that also offers abortion services. Every now and then (only when there is fair weather by the way) there are a small group of protesters out front with signs. I would not have known this clinic provides abortion services were it not for the protesters. I'm entirely sure they don't get the implications of what they are doing.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 22 2010 at 20:41

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 22 2010 at 20:50

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Social Darwinism ... what a can of worms. If you want to know who was an inspiration for Hitler:

Martin Luther

Yes luther was its cornerstone (werent you telling me of its catholic origins some tread ago, ummm), also goethe and schiller....JA,JA....do you say that because he said he was the man that no-one cheerish so much since luther?

Is not Goebbels who said: When i hear someone say the world culture i reach for my gun"

Evryone that doesnt see the conection between social darwinism and nazism...have not read enough or properly, sorry for arrogance but its obvious....The rest of Europe wasnt a basket of apples with a rotten one, they were all rotten!

All occidental world in fact..USA firstly aproved eugenics laws.

And for the theory of evolution......firstly we dont have to mix genic investigation with theory of evolution, secondly theory of evolution is suffering a lot of inner struggles...because as i only hinted theres a lot of simplicity ( ehem) in some of the Darwinian postulates.

The evolution of ultrafunctional organs by chance is mathematically discutible (just discutible), and also we may not forget de cambric explosion of the taxons........Theres no need to argue with evolution but with darwinism, some great minds are trying to explain the sudden holistic changes and apparition of species by genic stress in enviromental specific situation...in completly natural approach.

The problem is this: How can you separate sciencie and ethical---religious spheres....if sciencie by its nature tends to wave a sinthetic especulative cosmology that wants to answer this very question that the ethical and religious grounds in an alltogether different manner.

I mean how is compatible for a human to say dawkins egoist gen theory is truth and at the same time believe in the fundamental human rights......or dawkins is wrong, or the fundamental rights are anacronic.

Malthus dixit....we have "a couple" of starving people that doenst allow us to enjoy properly our richness.

Any solution?...a final one??

Moreover how if beside some of the greatest dogmas of science theres political implications.

Anyway dont want to get there.....i just beg you to mind what would happen if dawkinians have political, technical control, over the human "zoo" manegement. "A paradise of the betters" You can pull the easy joke but dont count me on that.

In the delirium of deustchland uber alles colide many factors and one is social darwinism, while others tend to blend it with pathaphysical freak outs in the spirits zone (Blavatsky,etc)....is not an easy theme for deciding....the manichean vision of the anglosaxon world is very simple.........and by the side of Hitler he used both darwinism and theosophy for his own purposses......He scolded Himmler by his absurd mysticism......my opinion is that Hitler was an nihilistic atheist of the right side (see satanism)...its admiration for Rusia give us hints...he just was in different country with different methods for trying to imposse total domination. it was something rethorical as goebbels knew well.

Not my favourites but is interesting: The Habermas-Benedictus debate....is on the net.

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 22 2010 at 21:25

ExittheLemming wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

This is what Ezekiel 28:15 actually says:

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

It doesn't talk about Lucifer, it talks about the Son of Man.

EDIT: I see ... apparently the Prince of Tyrus is Satan, and the line is part of a lamentation of the Son of Man addressing Satan. But still, I could interpret this as Satan having been created perfect (including free will) and then choosing unrighteousness (iniquity).

Not exact Mike, the Bible doesn't say the King of Tyre but the ruler of Tyre, being that the power behuind Tyre was Lucifer

but the Biblical quote explains itself:

¹³ You were in Eden,
       the garden of God;
       every precious stone adorned you:
       ruby, topaz and emerald,
       chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
       sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
       Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
       on the day you were created they were prepared.

¹⁴ You were anointed as a guardian cherub,

       for so I ordained you.
       You were on the holy mount of God;
       you walked among the fiery stones.

¹⁵ You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Also remember that the Old Testament is mostly allegorical.

ExittheLemming wrote:

Ok that's a bit clearer so what you're saying (I think) is that both angels and mortals were created 'perfect without sin' with the latter having uncorrupted souls until the fall of man via original sin.
That being the case, the source of 'original sin' was the corrupted/fallen angel Lucifer who rebelled against God by choosing the sin of pride. Now everything is 'tickety boo' up to this point BUT:

If God did not create evil but gave all his angels the choice to create it or reject it, ain't this like an ostrich floating weightlessly in space denouncing the Wright Brothers for defying gravity?

So where does the evil come from? Some theology would suggest it cannot be purely 'man made' as that would discount the existence of any demonic supernatural critters (and original sin) plus we can't just blame everything on the devil. (Although I may try this if ever I end up on death row, it seems to work quite well)

In short, I still can't get my head around the idea that the inventor of the only paint in the cosmos blames the graffiti on those using a different brand. Confused

Not angels and mortals, angels and inmortal human soul.
God didn't created evil, God creation hasn't reached perfection (If that would had happened we've all be Gods) and in an imperfect creation evil appeasrs, neither humans or angels create evil, much less God.

If you end in death row, it's because you took a voluntary decision to choose evil.

Iván

I'm not trying to be difficult here Ivan, but we seem to agree that God created Satan 'perfect without sin and freewill' (the last part I missed) yet you go on to say that God's creations haven't reached perfection.
I don't understand this, how can evil 'appear' in a perfect creation if the creation has to be 'imperfect' for the evil to appear?
Is it the creation's freewill to choose that offers the evil a window of opportunity to appear and make the perfect creation thus imperfect?
If God, angels (fallen or otherwise) nor humans create evil then who does?(Which was my original question several posts ago) Confused

BTW My 'death row' remark was tongue in cheek, being Scottish is not as yet a capital crime Wink

I think is evident lucifer had and still have freewill, and by missusing this gift he settled against God.

An is the same with all creatures.....still if lucifer doesnt exists...there would be evil in the world...as long as there were creatures with freewill and by that reason expoused to turn out of god (sin) and make an alien world just for himself wich is what ends upbeing hell.......Lucifer is just encharged of this problem in the whole creation as a tempter...and without knowing is working for Gods sake.....Saint Michel is encharged of this problem as a fighter...and Crist as mediator and reedemer.

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 22 2010 at 21:55

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ And even if it did affect the Theory of Evolution, that would still have nothing to do with Atheism.

atheism didnt appear like a fungus.......is not an un-argument, just debate it or say you didnt understand it.

It was the first darwinians not mister d himself (like huxley, Galton) wich made of darwinism an atheistic assault with many consecuences for history.

If the question is wich institutions made more crimes and behave foolier, the atheistics or the theistics:

The answer, namely, twenty century, is that obviously the atheist ones.

Nothing can compare to gulagks and concentration camps, to red jemeres.

Not every atheist is a killer...but you can have alot of reasons that in atehistical ways that can lend you very easy to that decision: no importance of the person as such? Historical or natural absolute determination? Instintical behaviour..the is me or him animal actitude?

And the problem is the atheist presnt himself as solver a lightbearer, inmaculate without biassed history, no crimes in his party and the others just proven non-sense followers.

Maybe the nosense is this void, this comunion with the apparent nonsense of History, and with the absolutely closed ultradeterministic nature............yeah! and with the natural fluctuations of markets......in the end what have to say the human to a activity regulated by nature,,,,,,just bow.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 23 2010 at 01:49

shockedjazz wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Social Darwinism ... what a can of worms. If you want to know who was an inspiration for Hitler:

Martin Luther

Is not Goebbels who said: When i hear someone say the world culture i reach for my gun"

All occidental world in fact..USA firstly aproved eugenics laws.

Malthus dixit....we have "a couple" of starving people that doenst allow us to enjoy properly our richness.

Any solution?...a final one??

Moreover how if beside some of the greatest dogmas of science theres political implications.

Not my favourites but is interesting: The Habermas-Benedictus debate....is on the net.

What a bunch of crap. Sorry, but you won't get any serious response from me - not with that amount of bullsh*t and fundamentally flawed analogies.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 23 2010 at 01:53

shockedjazz wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ And even if it did affect the Theory of Evolution, that would still have nothing to do with Atheism.

atheism didnt appear like a fungus.......is not an un-argument, just debate it or say you didnt understand it.

It was the first darwinians not mister d himself (like huxley, Galton) wich made of darwinism an atheistic assault with many consecuences for history.

shockedjazz wrote:

If the question is wich institutions made more crimes and behave foolier, the atheistics or the theistics:

The answer, namely, twenty century, is that obviously the atheist ones.

Nice kindergarten logic.

shockedjazz wrote:

Nothing can compare to gulagks and concentration camps, to red jemeres.

Not every atheist is a killer...

Now you're being inconsistent.

shockedjazz wrote:

but you can have alot of reasons that in atehistical ways that can lend you very easy to that decision: no importance of the person as such? Historical or natural absolute determination? Instintical behaviour..the is me or him animal actitude?

And the problem is the atheist presnt himself as solver a lightbearer, inmaculate without biassed history, no crimes in his party and the others just proven non-sense followers.

Maybe the nosense (sic) is you.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 23 2010 at 02:37

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

There's a new book on print

"The Dawkins Delusion"

I believe it's about his campaign to arrest the Pope in London.

Thank you Dawkins, your fanatism made the Pope more popular.

Iván

We're not a non roman catholic country - we have lots of roman catholics here - 1 in 10 christians are catholic. We are an anglican country or we are a protestant country, but we are not a non roman catholic country.

That 20,000 people marched in protest of the visit speaks volumes - how many protested when JPII visited the UK? And those protesters had nothing to do with Dawkins or atheism, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11355258

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 23 2010 at 02:49

shockedjazz wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ And even if it did affect the Theory of Evolution, that would still have nothing to do with Atheism.

atheism didnt appear like a fungus.......is not an un-argument, just debate it or say you didnt understand it.

I said it was an non-argument, not an un-argument. And I didn't say that because I didn't understand it - again you insult my intelligence - I understand your argument perfectly, I just do not see any value in debating against you.

shockedjazz wrote:

It was the first darwinians not mister d himself (like huxley, Galton) wich made of darwinism an atheistic assault with many consecuences for history.

If the question is wich institutions made more crimes and behave foolier, the atheistics or the theistics:

The answer, namely, twenty century, is that obviously the atheist ones.

Nothing can compare to gulagks and concentration camps, to red jemeres.

And the problem is the atheist presnt himself as solver a lightbearer, inmaculate without biassed history, no crimes in his party and the others just proven non-sense followers.

Edited by Dean - September 23 2010 at 02:50

What?

seventhsojourn View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006

Posted: September 23 2010 at 05:28

Dean wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

There's a new book on print

"The Dawkins Delusion"

I believe it's about his campaign to arrest the Pope in London.

Thank you Dawkins, your fanatism made the Pope more popular.

Iván

I myself have criticised the Church's position on some of these issues in other threads, and judging by the stats in that article many fellow Catholics share my concerns. The Church has undoubtedly been damaged by recent scandals and Benedict XVI seems to have a reputation for being outspoken re- homosexuality and the role of women.

However, I'm not sure how the above had nothing to do with Dawkins or atheism when Dawkins spoke at the rally. Al Murray is quoted as saying he was ''perplexed'' that it was a state visit. The Protest The Pope is a co-ordinated campaign that ''opposes the fact that it (the Pope's visit) is, in part, financed by the taxpayers.'', whereas John Paul II's pastoral visit was largely funded by the Church itself. Some secularists have clearly been annoyed at the UK Government picking up a large part of the tab. We were also at war with Argentina in 1982; this could have had a negative impact but I think John Paul II's message of peace struck a general chord at the time.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 23 2010 at 05:58

seventhsojourn wrote:

However, I'm not sure how the above had nothing to do with Dawkins or atheism when Dawkins spoke at the rally.

Sorry, yes - I could have been clearer but typed that in a rush before setting out for work. I meant that very few of the 20,000 protestors has anything to do with Dawkins and that protest itself wasn't a pro-atheism or anti-christian protest.

What?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 23 2010 at 06:22

seventhsojourn wrote:

AFAIK they declared it a state visit so that the pope is granted diplomatic immunity and cannot be prosecuted for alledged crimes.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 23 2010 at 10:46

Dean wrote:

Of course England is a non Catholic country according to your rate (1 in 10):

According to the 2001 Census in London only 58.7% are Christians, this means that only 5.8% are Catholic, the same census informs that atheists are reported as 16% and 25% (Total) say they have no religion.

So the number of atheists in London is 3 times the Catholics in the same city.

BTW: Christians in all England are 75.8%, so at the most 7.58% are Catholics, even Jewish (A religion that doesn't grow as fast as any other and is a minority in most of the world) almost make 3 times the Catholics in London, even when in the rest of England decreases a lot to 0..5 %.

England is a non Catholic country, because a very small minority of persons are Catholics.

Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ethnicity0203.pdf

This means that having three times the number of Catholics, the atheists only gathered 10% of the crowd the Pope did, believe me, in cold numbers is a failure, specially because Dawkins has been working the arrest nonsense for several months

Dean wrote:

That 20,000 people marched in protest of the visit speaks volumes - how many protested when JPII visited the UK? And those protesters had nothing to do with Dawkins or atheism, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11355258

The number means nothing is 15,000 Atheists (who represent 3 times the total number of Catholics) march, while the Pope gathered almost 150,000 souls.

And please don't tell me that Dawkins has little to do with this, he's the face of the protest, he has invested a lot in publicity and even paid lawyers to try to arrest the Pope, he was the main speaker and co-organizer of the rally as vice President of the IHEU.

There are more protestors now (The sites I searched don't talk of numbers, burt said that the protests against John Paull II were insignifivcant), because Dawkins is some sort of Messianic leader and gathers a lot of credibility among atheists, plus they have coordinated with . secular, gay, feminist and other activist groups in a co-ordinated campaign. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11186463

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 23 2010 at 10:54

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:37

I still don't quite understand what your point about these numbers is ... I think that it's safe to say that most people from the UK don't care about the pope, no matter whether they're religious or not. My mother is a Catholic and she doesn't like him at all - mainly because of his stupid statements about women, abortion, contraception and so forth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.html

Atheists are the least of the pope's problems, apparently.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 23 2010 at 12:48

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

Of course England is a non Catholic country according to your rate (1 in 10):

So the number of atheists in London is 3 times the Catholics in the same city.

England is a non Catholic country, because a very small minority of persons are Catholics.

Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ethnicity0203.pdf

Stop defining my country by what it is not - we don't have any wild elephants but we are not a non-elephant country - badgers are in the minority but we are not a non-badger country. We have catholics - by your maths we have 440,000 catholics living in London and 4,683,834 in the whole country; the town I live in has 17 churches for 20,000 people - 2 of those are catholic churches - others include quaker, jehovah's witness, plymouth brethren, methodist, baptist, evangelical and salvation army alongside our anglican/church of england churches. Our nation has endured 400 years of sectarian violence and bloodshed because people stand up and say "you are a non-catholic country" when we have catholic people living here. Describe us by what we are, not by what we are not.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The number means nothing is 15,000 Atheists (who represent 3 times the total number of Catholics) march, while the Pope gathered almost 150,000 souls.

Iván

You can continue your gloat campaign against Dawkins, it doesn't bother me. (though the image of Dawkins and Benedict in some soul-collection contest is amusing). People protested, for whatever reasons and by whatever motivation - they did not protest in those numbers when JPII visited here - you cannot put positive spin on that and sound convincing.

What?