| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:40 |
 Slartibartfast wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up. |
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván |
Douglas Adams proved it fairly convincingly:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that
anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved
by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50
And now you're going to have to prove to me that the babel fish doesn't exist. 
|
I appreciate the humor there, but of course, that notion requires a faulty understanding of what biblical faith is. Faith by definition cannot be blind (seriously). Faith (pistis) without evidence (in the Bible, that evidence is grace- charis) is pointless. See Seneca's On Benefits.
Oh, sorry if I'm not welcome here.
|
|
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:28 |
stonebeard wrote:
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
|
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:19 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up. |
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván |
Douglas Adams proved it fairly convincingly: Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that
anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved
by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50And now you're going to have to prove to me that the babel fish doesn't exist.
Edited by Slartibartfast - June 05 2009 at 18:20
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 15:22 |
|
Whether a God created the Big Bang or not is silly to debate. No one could possibly give any evidence for it (now, if not ever), so why even bother proposing it? Anyway, if the prospect of everything beginning with the Big Bang is odious enough to religious people, then I see no reason why an infinite God creating that Big Bang solves any of their problems with the logic of the previous scenario.
Edited by stonebeard - June 05 2009 at 15:23
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 15:19 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up. |
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván |
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so. I doubt any of those guys would really care if someone is deist, agnostic, apathetic, atheist and so on because those types of belief are really inconsequential when you get down to it. Only an interventionist God matters in terms of practical, day-to-day beliefs. I mean this in the sense that the belif would counter scientific and rational outlooks, as an supernatural, interventionist God would be beyond the scope of science, I think, though I don't believe that. This riles a lot of those people.
|
|
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:47 |
Now that's the best explanation I've seen in a long time......still if a God exists, it is as a lonesome and powerless or disinterested energy and I believe his/her dervish dance spiralled out of control a long time ago. The repeated lack of divine interventions within a universal collective consciousness proves it. " My God my mediator, may you flourish in your solitude....." 
Edited by Chris S - June 05 2009 at 04:47
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:42 |
Why do we have to have a talk about religion in a specific non religous thread? Go back to your own thread!!! 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:38 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:07 |
Epignosis wrote:
I don't see how "I had a bad experience with religion" proves religion wrong. That's just as good as "I had a good experience with religion, so it's true."
I don't wish to stir anything up (thank you for those who popped into my Christian thread or stayed out if you felt you had to). If I am, feel free to boot me. I don't wish to cause any problems. My wife and I were actually moved by Dean's initial post- mainly because I wanted to scream, "Yeah, but those people were dicks!"
|
Yes and no. Those people were not dicks, they were intently serious earnest people - the church they were a part of was similarly set up for all the right reasons and never went "off-message" like so many of the brainwash cults did. As I said more than once, it was not an epiphany, nor was it a bad experience. I just did not see myself fitting in to their rules-set (I could have returned to my old church and still kept my record collection  ) - I wanted my religion to complement my life, not rule it, I wanted to question and discuss without receiving scripted answers or being fobbed off with "god made it so". My issue was not with them specifically, but with the whole Charismatic Movement which had swung to the opposite extreme of High Church and had effectively become just as constrained and restrictive, may be even more so. I also grew to realise that perhaps much of it was self-perpetuating and in some cases even a pretence in order to belong. I remained a christian for almost twenty years after that, but never again as a member of any organised religion. My personal view now is that man created god in his image, that the scriptures are the word of man and the holy trinity (something that occurs in several non-Abrahamic religions as well) is a projection of man trying to explain consciousness and free will as separate from, but a still part of, the corporeal body.
Edited by Dean - June 05 2009 at 04:11
|
|
What?
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:42 |
|
Ehrman has written many books dealing with the Christian faith. I am currently reading his book "God's Problem" which is about how the bible fails to offer a truly adequate answer to the problem of suffering.
He is an agnostic who has been studying the bible for years. I think he has multiple degrees in testament study, and writes very well in an intellectual, yet terse manner. Not to mention, he raises some superb points.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:19 |
|
yeah I understand, me either
|
|
Plankowner
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 09 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:14 |
Well I kind of wanted to talk about things without spiraling down the usual christian debates... is all.
Guess I can ignore certain posts.
Who's Bart Ehrman?
Since I don't watch TV I missed the President's speech, should find it and listen. Anything he said you feel like sharing?
Edited by Plankowner - June 05 2009 at 02:22
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:46 |
|
I see your point Dave but I don't know if it feels right-- it's true most non-Christians have stayed out of or been respectful when posting in the Christian thread, but conversely the Christian threaders have always been welcoming of non-religious members too as far as I know. Besides I don't think this site encourages [or even allows] exclusivity in threads, and considering the spirit of the President's speech today, perhaps we should welcome anyone here as long as they don't attack members.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:41 |
|
For the love a lack of God, keep it clean guys!
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:39 |
Plankowner wrote:
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here. |
What? Have you opened this forum to convince people?
I'm not part of any thread much less of any thread trying to convince people of anything.
But this forum is open, I see in the Christian thread many people questioning Epignosis, so any member is free to post in the Christian or any thread I feel the same in this case.
Atheists feel free to enter to any theological thread and say what they want, why can't we?
Plankowner wrote:
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. A |
That's FALSE, in this forum the majority is Atheist or Agnostic, and everybody is free to say what they want.
Plankowner wrote:
And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood. |
I been here since the forum started and everybody knows I never tried to convince any person of anything, never diid it and never will, as a fact I ALWAYS take the position against evangelism outside a church, even if it carries disagreements with Christians or whoever.
Plankowner wrote:
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here. |
Respect and disagreement are different, as long as people feel free to enter to any thread and give their opinion, I will feel free to enter to any thread.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 05 2009 at 01:58
|
|
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:39 |
Plankowner wrote:
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here.
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood.
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here. |
I applaud this post. Has anyone heard of Bart Ehrman?
|
|
Plankowner
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 09 2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:15 |
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here.
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood.
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:50 |
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up. |
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:35 |
Epignosis wrote:
I don't see how "I had a bad experience with religion" proves religion wrong. That's just as good as "I had a good experience with religion, so it's true."
I don't wish to stir anything up (thank you for those who popped into my Christian thread or stayed out if you felt you had to). If I am, feel free to boot me. I don't wish to cause any problems. My wife and I were actually moved by Dean's initial post- mainly because I wanted to scream, "Yeah, but those people were dicks!"
|
Agreed. I hate that as well. I didn't turn away from religion because of one thing but just slowly over time. Though there were a few specific incidents that helped, but that was just with my family not anything about the whole Catholic Church.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:25 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
KoS wrote:
^ See it all works out
Back to topic, I have found this to be very informative,
|
Honestly I find Dawkins and Co. arrogant, with a self superiority feeling that they own the truth and are allowed to decide what we must think and believe in.
I believe in God but I don't find offensive that anybody doesn't believe, but this guys say they find our beliefs offensive, is their disbelief so weak that they are afraid of us?.
For the same reasons I dislike fundamentalists who want us to believe their truth, I dislike the guys who feel so superior to call our deep beliefs a superstition just because they don't share it.
They are doing the same evangelism of their disbelief that fundamentalists do of their beliefs and still they claim to be morally superior.
Iván
|
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
