Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7172737475 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 18:10
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


He's certainly not trying to "get" the political correct guys.
And neither is Pat Condell. Which is their mistake and why the rest of us will continue to ignore them or be amused by them depending on whether we can endure their diatribes to the bitter end or not.

Treating people like idiots never convinced anyone of anything... 
 
 
I actually think he makes some valid points in the ''Pat Condell hates tacos'' vid... am I the only person that watched it here?
No you're not - in this post I even said that in the main I agreed with him on that particular video diatribe.
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 18:10

SS: Note the "more".
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 18:24
So religious people are less so, then?   
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 18:26

Theoretically they could, even should be. I mean there's a great guiding hand governing the universe, isn't there?
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 18:59
It's interesting that you criticize Christians because of a belief in fate, Textbook. Personally, I don't think I know any Christians who profess to believe in fate. The whole point of the Garden story is that man has free will and has to deal with the consequences.

On the other hand, I have known many scientifically minded atheists who claim to not believe in free will. In this regard I share your puzzlement. If you believe you have no control over your actions, how do you even get out of bed in the morning. How could we have any kind of justice system if every act is simply the product of chemicals interacting in our brains? It's not his fault that the scientific bride-builder made a bridge that collapsed, he didn't have freewill. This is a mindset that I have never been able to understand, so in that sense I agree with you, but I think you are attributing it to the wrong group of people.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:02
I don't accept that view either, at least in the simplistic way it is presented. If a bridge-builder uses the wrong strength-coefficient for the material he is using in the construction and it fails as a result that is neither fate nor divine providence - that's incompetence and negligence, regardless of who or what is blamed as an excuse or to ease the conscience of the guilty. If there is any predestined failure (ie an inherent failure mechanism) in the structure then it is knowable and preventable - a strut can be predestined to fail, but knowing that there is a probability that failure can happen means that bridge builders will design-in redundancy so that the failure of a single strut will not result in catastrophic failure of the entire structure.
 
The bridge-building regulations, procedures and standards are designed to eliminate such preventable errors at every step in the design, prototyping, testing, building and final acceptance testing, thus reducing chance in the equation. Failure to adhere to those is negligence born through incompetence not fate or providence, not having that error caught by appropriate safety checks is negligence born through incompetence, not through lack of free-will.
What?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:04
Didn't know you were an engineer Dean.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:06

But if god meant for the bridge to stand up it would.

So god meant for the bridge to fall.
 
Or it really was up to the engineer and god didn't have any plan either way.
 
Which means disasters are not part of a plan.
 
Which means god allows them to happen despite being able to prevent them.
 
Which means god sits placidly by while things like the holocaust unfold as it's all part of a process necessary to sort the material he constructed our souls out of into piles of 'good" and "bad".
 
Which makes him like a butterfly collector who keeps his specimens alive and perpetually tortures them.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:11
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Didn't know you were an engineer Dean.
That's what it says under "Occupation" in my profile Big smile
What?
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:22
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

But if god meant for the bridge to stand up it would.

So god meant for the bridge to fall.
 
Or it really was up to the engineer and god didn't have any plan either way.
 
Which means disasters are not part of a plan.
 
Which means god allows them to happen despite being able to prevent them.
 
Which means god sits placidly by while things like the holocaust unfold as it's all part of a process necessary to sort the material he constructed our souls out of into piles of 'good" and "bad".
 
Which makes him like a butterfly collector who keeps his specimens alive and perpetually tortures them.


Try for a moment to imagine a world where a Christian-like God averted every bridge collapse, because he didn't want to see humans suffer. How many competant engineers would there be?

Further imagine that he prevented every car crash, every careless accident, every plane crash, every train wreck, every armed robbery and so on and so on.

Such a world would not be civilization, but a zoo. A nursery in which infants are protected from every conceivable harm. These infants would never grow up, never mature and never accomplish anything. Somehow I don't think that's the world the Christian God wants.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:24
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Didn't know you were an engineer Dean.
That's what it says under "Occupation" in my profile Big smile

Haha yes when you said strength-coefficient I thought "He must be an engineer." So I checked and verified my thought.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 20:27
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

But if god meant for the bridge to stand up it would.

So god meant for the bridge to fall.
 
Or it really was up to the engineer and god didn't have any plan either way.
 
Which means disasters are not part of a plan.
 
Which means god allows them to happen despite being able to prevent them.
 
Which means god sits placidly by while things like the holocaust unfold as it's all part of a process necessary to sort the material he constructed our souls out of into piles of 'good" and "bad".
 
Which makes him like a butterfly collector who keeps his specimens alive and perpetually tortures them.


Belief in Christianity (for example) doesn't equal belief in predestination.

God gives man freedom to act and a universe to act in (complete with the laws of physics). Man is able to act in a meaningful way because his actions have consequences. If god were to intervene every time an action would have negative consequences, that would inhibit man's freedom of action.

But then, that's just what I think.
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 09 2010 at 23:29
Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

But if god meant for the bridge to stand up it would.

So god meant for the bridge to fall.
 
Or it really was up to the engineer and god didn't have any plan either way.
 
Which means disasters are not part of a plan.
 
Which means god allows them to happen despite being able to prevent them.
 
Which means god sits placidly by while things like the holocaust unfold as it's all part of a process necessary to sort the material he constructed our souls out of into piles of 'good" and "bad".
 
Which makes him like a butterfly collector who keeps his specimens alive and perpetually tortures them.


Belief in Christianity (for example) doesn't equal belief in predestination.

God gives man freedom to act and a universe to act in (complete with the laws of physics). Man is able to act in a meaningful way because his actions have consequences. If god were to intervene every time an action would have negative consequences, that would inhibit man's freedom of action.

But then, that's just what I think.
Basically, that's what is free will all about. First, and is something that Textbook refuse to do in the whole thread is trying to see things from the other side. God is not a human, so he doesn't feel guiltiness or some regret emotion of the "bad" things that happen. That's the first problem, trying to pretend that God is a powerful man, he is not so you can't say "Oh, he is bad because he aloud this or that to happen", it's what is in our hands and man kind that we are doing wrong and that WE can solve. Dean has a point in that. Yes, most of the "problem" can be solved if everybody works on their profession or job properly, or if we have enough professionals on the accurate possitions. That could solve many of the problems of our life, but then again, it's about decisions, many people made mistakes by choosing a wrong way... that's free will and it's OK, because we decide, we have to force ourselves to be better every time. In that case, at least Christians have a light in Jesus, who has a lot of tricky answers to solve many problems... but well, it's about perception and at the end, decision...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 00:10
A person who once entered into a similar discussion with hopes of converting me eventually said "I don't think there's much point continuing this discussion with you because I've realised there's absolutely nothing I can say which would make you even consider conversion. Anything I say will somehow be rejected. You've shut down any angle a religious person might use to persuade you."
 
And I replied "Well I hope so because if that wasn't the case it wouldn't make much sense for me to be arguing the position that I am. It's only possible that you could convert me on the theoretical level- in practical terms I think I'm absolutely dead to the idea and there's a 0% likelihood of it. I don't think even new events or information can do it as I don't believe man is even capable of perceiving anything that justifies a religion."
 
And he goes "Well you're biased and judgemental and narrow-minded because you seem to have hopes of religious people turning off religion when confronted with your view, but you do not allow for the opposite possibility of you going over to their side."
 
And I said "So you are open to the possibility of coming over to my side and renouncing your religion?"

And he goes "Uh, no, not at all.... no that's never going to happen."
 
And we realised we're perhaps not that different in some ways after all.
 
It's a funny thing about religious friends who try to convert you though. I bet several non-believers here have had the same experience- they try to get you to go to church and so on and you consistently refuse for a while. Maybe they eventually give up which is fine, maybe they get a little more insistent to the point where it's a bit awkward. And you say to them "No. I don't want to do it. I'm very sure I never will. Please stop it."

There's a real dilemma here for both sides that asks you to choose between social and heavenly concerns.
 
i) If the believer decides to give up, they can continue as friends and move on. However, they have forsaken the non-believer and are no longer attempting to save their soul and spread the light of god to them. In fact the non-believer may now go to hell because the believer did not insist. The non-believer might think they're being a friend by letting it go, but would a friend allow you to go to hell?
 
ii) But if the believer persists in converting the unbeliever, the friendship may deteriorate and even break entirely. Religiously the believer hasn't done anything wrong, they tried their best, but socially this is not a positive outcome as they have not respected/accepted/tolerate as one is supposed to these days.
 
Which do you do? Or is there a third way I'm not seeing?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 01:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

When arguing against a metaphysical concept it is sometimes necessary to argue on the basis of "even if it was true". I know what you're getting at, I simply don't agree with your conclusion. I agree that scientific arguments won't be able to reach fundamentalist Theists. IMO you're doing science and reason a disservice by arguing that they should automatically defer to religion. I ask you again: How is trying not to step on any religious person's toes going to change anything?
Two points:
 
1. I'm not arguing, or saying, or implying, that science should defer to religion. Quite the contrary - I'm saying (because this has been my position since day one) ignore religion from any scientific study because it is simply not applicable and not relevant. (and ultimately futile).
 


Then you're deeply anti-theistic and challenge religion even more than I do, but you keep it to yourself. I just think that as a consequence many theists reading your posts might get the impression that you're on their side. Take faith schools in Britain as an example: You can decide to keep out of the argument, but once you participate, you're either for or against them.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:



2. I see you are inferring that I am one of those PC guys who are afraid to step on a religious person's toes. (so soon after I said I was not an apologetic too). Not true. If they put their toes under my size 11s I'll step on them, but I'll not stamp around at random hoping to bust a digit or two in the process. The point I make in not even attempting to offend believers is that such an act is achieves nothing. So I can use smart logic to refute minutiae in the bible, but does that affect any of the fundamental foundation that their faith is built upon? No, of course it doesn't.
 


I've given many examples that aren't just "minutiae". The Bible is inconsistent when it comes to fundamental questions, like whether people should judge, whether they should uphold Jewish law, whether Jesus was born of a virgin or God incarnate ... and it can be shown that the inconsistencies in the books most likely come from errors made by the people who were writing, editing and copying the books. I'm sure that this is not news to you, and most moderate Christians will probably just shrug and keep on (sort of) believing, but nevertheless I think that it should be said.



Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


 
I am called a Westerner and I live in the West. This puzzles me because I know I live on a globe and that if I open my front door and travel east for 17,296km I'll walk into my house through the back door and I also I know that If I leave by the back door and travel west for 17,296km I will return through the front door. Logic says I simultaneously live in the west and in the east. So I pull out my Nokia phone and its GPS tells me I am standing 1º 03' 21.19" W and I know that means west of the Greenwich Meridian - so therefore it is scientific proof that I am living in the West, if only by 1 degree of longitude. Now I know that is a happy coincidence for me that doesn't quite work for all those people living east of the Greenwich Meridian who think of themselves as living in the West because I know that the "The West" has lots of ambiguous non-scientific meanings regarding socio-political and socioeconomic systems and can even include people living in Australia, which geogrpahically is either as eastern as the Orient or neither east nor west, but down under. So even though I can use science and logic to prove something, it doesn't necessarily prove anything if what I apply my scientific logic to is not based in science in the first place.


It is religious people who are misusing science and keep making claims that clearly contradict science. Here's a somewhat extreme example:LOL
Back to Top
elder08 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 25 2010
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 236 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 02:02
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I think this is a rather insulting thread, and this is coming from an agnostic. Obviously theists don't believe their arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Your basic premise in your opening question is "I'm right and you're wrong so what do you think about that?" It doesn't seem like you want to have a real conversation, you just want to make fun of people you view as stupid.

All the logic and science in the world is not going to convince a theist that he is wrong, but it's not an issue which is governed by logic. It is one that comes from personal experience. Why don't you let others hold their beliefs, just as you are free to hold yours, without going out of your way to mock them? If you want to make the world a better place, you might start with a little respect for others.

I am christian and I agree with you completely I think this is the first time we have ever agreed on something man haha. Now some people get offended when Christians invite them to church I would like to point out that Christians believe in hell and if you aren't saved by their god than you go there. So if someone invites you politely decline don't go off on them please they are just trying to be nice
"There are people who say we [Pink Floyd] should make room for younger bands. That's not the way it works. They can make their own room."- David Gilmour
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 02:56
^ How can you be so sure that your religion holds the key to salvation? There's a good consensus in this thread that none of the concepts of Christianity can be proven. These Christians that you're talking about may be trying to be nice, but they're also being quite arrogant in that they claim to know what happens when we die. Muslims also claim to know, and as it happens they have a very different view on what we have to believe and/or do in order to be saved. So, my question to you as a sort of fundamentalist (as compared to Iván, for instancE) Christian would be: How can you be so certain when the tenets of your religion not only conflict with those of other religions that have no less basis in reality (scripture, age etc) than yours - but also with the physical reality of the world around us.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 03:10
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


So you think that "politically correct" qualifies as "names"? I guess there's hope for you after all.Wink
Well, I've yet to meet anyone who calls themselves a "Politcally Correct" guy, and in a world of "Political Correctness gone mad" the term is now in the sole usage of those people who use it in a disparaging way.
 
And anyway, not offending an armed fundamentalist religious nutjob is not really Political Correctness Gone Mad - it's more like not using a hair-dryer in the shower, which as anyone will tell you, is actually Health And Safety Gone Mad.


It simply worries me that today you have to worry about someone coming to your home and killing you merely for drawing a cartoon. And in this case "someone" is not an isolated nutjob guy, but hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who are presumably just misinterpreting the religion of peace. And the problem is: The situation keeps getting worse, not better.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 03:29
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


So you think that "politically correct" qualifies as "names"? I guess there's hope for you after all.Wink
Well, I've yet to meet anyone who calls themselves a "Politcally Correct" guy, and in a world of "Political Correctness gone mad" the term is now in the sole usage of those people who use it in a disparaging way.
 
And anyway, not offending an armed fundamentalist religious nutjob is not really Political Correctness Gone Mad - it's more like not using a hair-dryer in the shower, which as anyone will tell you, is actually Health And Safety Gone Mad.


It simply worries me that today you have to worry about someone coming to your home and killing you merely for drawing a cartoon. And in this case "someone" is not an isolated nutjob guy, but hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who are presumably just misinterpreting the religion of peace. And the problem is: The situation keeps getting worse, not better.
That's a made-up number. There is no way on Earth that you can quote figures like 100s of thousands and have any basis in reality, even if a figure of 100,000 only represented 0.006% of all Muslims so that it sounds statistically feasible. 0.006% of any demographic regardless of religious denomination or predeliction will probably kill someone for some spurious reason. Unless you conduct a survey of that specific point to produce such a number you are scare-mongering.
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 04:45
^ Sam Harris cited studies in his book and mentioned comparable numbers. Of course I know that there's over a billion Muslims and the overwhelming majority would not kill me for drawing Muhammad. The scary thing is that as other studies show, even many moderate Muslims would side with the extremists or at least demand that the cartoonist be silenced and the cartoons be destroyed. It's this mentality that religions must not be criticized (or else) that flies in the face of freedom ... and pluralism.

That's also why I side with TJ ... people should be allowed to say "religion X is silly" or even "if you believe in X then I think you're a moron" regardless of whether we agree with them or not. As soon as we prefer silencing them, all our freedom is curtailed.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7172737475 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.305 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.