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 172173174
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Proletariat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2010 at 15:47

Theism vs Atheism... Is it worth trying to settle?
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
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: December 14 2010 at 15:49
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

I pretty confident?
You too eh?

Not sure, that's why it's a question.Tongue
This idea will spread and before long several people will see the logic in not believing in the existence of Zeus. Mark my words - it begins here.
What?
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2010 at 15:51
Never been a fan of Zeus anyway. Odin/ Wotan is more my thing.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2010 at 18:49
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Theism vs Atheism... Is it worth trying to settle?



Not really. As long as science tends to progress, religion will fade away slowly.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
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: December 15 2010 at 06:15
If we are so crazy and delusional, why argue with us? You cannot argue with a delusion. That only reinforces the delusion and makes it seem more real. You'd be crazy to even try. Wink
 
If the atheist argument is so compelling, why the need for ridicule? Appeal to ridicule is another typical atheist fallacy... and please, don't try to say that I'm making assumptions about the existence of Greek gods.
 
On paganism and the origin of religion in general, this notion that god(s) is/are man made... for example to meet some need or to help explain our world. We simply can't know that. To some, this may seem to be the more likely explanation, but just because something is more likely doesn't necessarily make it true. In The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that God of The Old Testament evolved from ''the most unpleasant character in all fiction'' to the ''milksop persona'' of Jesus. So as we evolved, God evolved. But even if we accept that, it doesn't explain why we believed in god(s) or whether any god exists. 
 
And I still don't get how science should be at the top of some imaginary pyramid of knowledge. How we define knowledge is a philosophical question. Philosophy helps us form our ideas of right and wrong. We (theists) are often accused of belief in superstition. Wiki defines superstition as: a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge. But we don't have a universally accepted definition of knowledge. Mike said earlier that I was on the slippery slope to post-modernism. But if we all think the same way, where does that rocky path lead us? 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 06:45
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

If we are so crazy and delusional, why argue with us?

The answer is actually quite simple.  If you annoy atheists with proseyltization (I don't think I spelled that right), why shouldn't atheists respond in kind?
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 06:54
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

 On paganism and the origin of religion in general, this notion that god(s) is/are man made...
One thing is sure, if You belive in only 1 God's, a lot of God's must have benn man made. 
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
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: December 15 2010 at 13:05
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

^ Mike raised the abuse scandal issue yesterday when he posted the quote by Hitchens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss theists' beliefs. Therefore an association between abuse and belief in God is inferred (at least in the case of Catholicism). Otherwise the abuse scandal would be a red herring, an easy target yes, but not relevant to the discussion of theists' beliefs. 

If Mike changed the thread title again, eg ''priests abuse scandal'', then fair enough. But I'm really not going to waste any more time on this, there's already been a thread on the subject
A point of clarification - Mike did not raise the abuse scandal issue, you did. He posted a video of Hitchens criticising Mother Teresa's "good works" in response to my claim that even though she did not perform miracles, the Catholic church should honour her with a "sainthood" in recognition of her good works. You selectively picked out a phrase in that video that appeared (to you) as if Hitchens thought pedastry was worse than hetrosexual child abuse - the subsequent discussion on child abuse within the Catholic church grew from that. If you hadn't picked out that phrase, we would have mentioned it.
 
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss atheist "beliefs" - if such a thread exists that would Teo's Atheist thread. This thread has developed into a discussion of Theism vs. Atheism that has departed significantly from Mikes OP some 3,500 posts ago - and there is nothing wrong with that, we cannot discuss a "humorous" animation for 3500 posts.
What?
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: December 15 2010 at 13:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

^ Mike raised the abuse scandal issue yesterday when he posted the quote by Hitchens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss theists' beliefs. Therefore an association between abuse and belief in God is inferred (at least in the case of Catholicism). Otherwise the abuse scandal would be a red herring, an easy target yes, but not relevant to the discussion of theists' beliefs. 

If Mike changed the thread title again, eg ''priests abuse scandal'', then fair enough. But I'm really not going to waste any more time on this, there's already been a thread on the subject
A point of clarification - Mike did not raise the abuse scandal issue, you did. He posted a video of Hitchens criticising Mother Teresa's "good works" in response to my claim that even though she did not perform miracles, the Catholic church should honour her with a "sainthood" in recognition of her good works. You selectively picked out a phrase in that video that appeared (to you) as if Hitchens thought pedastry was worse than hetrosexual child abuse - the subsequent discussion on child abuse within the Catholic church grew from that. If you hadn't picked out that phrase, we would have mentioned it.
 
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss atheist "beliefs" - if such a thread exists that would Teo's Atheist thread. This thread has developed into a discussion of Theism vs. Atheism that has departed significantly from Mikes OP some 3,500 posts ago - and there is nothing wrong with that, we cannot discuss a "humorous" animation for 3500 posts.
 
Confused
 
Dean, I can assure you that Mike did indeed raise the abuse issue. I didn't. If you check that link to my post, you will see it appears on page 169 of this thread and is dated Dec 12 at 11.44 hours. Mike's post, to which I was responding, appears on page 168 and is dated Dec 12 at 09.36 hours. This is what Mike posted:
 
"No child's behind left".

(Christopher Hitchens, about the Catholic church)
 
Clearly a reference to the abuse scandal. I responded to Mike's post with a lengthier quote by Hitchens, not from the video as you say, but from an interview at A. V. Club, and I reference that in my post.
 
Hopefully that clears up this issue once and for all.
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: December 15 2010 at 14:46
Well, if that constitutes "raising an issue" for you, then I'm guilty as charged. LOL
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: December 15 2010 at 15:04

Actually SS, that's what I've been saying. Theists are delusional and should exit the argument and go live in their own little la-la land instead of trying to have it both ways by joining in rational debates. However because they are delusional, they cannot see the problems with having one's cake and eating it too.



Edited by Textbook - December 15 2010 at 15:06
Back to Top
Any Colour You Like View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 15:16
Everything is permitted does not mean that nothing is impermissible.

My job here is done.
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: December 15 2010 at 15:23
It doesn't?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Any Colour You Like View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 15:24
Indeed.
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: December 15 2010 at 15:44
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

^ Mike raised the abuse scandal issue yesterday when he posted the quote by Hitchens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss theists' beliefs. Therefore an association between abuse and belief in God is inferred (at least in the case of Catholicism). Otherwise the abuse scandal would be a red herring, an easy target yes, but not relevant to the discussion of theists' beliefs. 

If Mike changed the thread title again, eg ''priests abuse scandal'', then fair enough. But I'm really not going to waste any more time on this, there's already been a thread on the subject
A point of clarification - Mike did not raise the abuse scandal issue, you did. He posted a video of Hitchens criticising Mother Teresa's "good works" in response to my claim that even though she did not perform miracles, the Catholic church should honour her with a "sainthood" in recognition of her good works. You selectively picked out a phrase in that video that appeared (to you) as if Hitchens thought pedastry was worse than hetrosexual child abuse - the subsequent discussion on child abuse within the Catholic church grew from that. If you hadn't picked out that phrase, we would have mentioned it.
 
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss atheist "beliefs" - if such a thread exists that would Teo's Atheist thread. This thread has developed into a discussion of Theism vs. Atheism that has departed significantly from Mikes OP some 3,500 posts ago - and there is nothing wrong with that, we cannot discuss a "humorous" animation for 3500 posts.
 
Confused
 
Dean, I can assure you that Mike did indeed raise the abuse issue. I didn't. If you check that link to my post, you will see it appears on page 169 of this thread and is dated Dec 12 at 11.44 hours. Mike's post, to which I was responding, appears on page 168 and is dated Dec 12 at 09.36 hours. This is what Mike posted:
 
"No child's behind left".

(Christopher Hitchens, about the Catholic church)
 
Clearly a reference to the abuse scandal. I responded to Mike's post with a lengthier quote by Hitchens, not from the video as you say, but from an interview at A. V. Club, and I reference that in my post.
 
Hopefully that clears up this issue once and for all.
(My mistake - I assumed that the AV Club thing was a reference to the video Mike posted)
 
However, there is a whole world of difference between Mike's post and yours with regard to "raising the issue", but have it your way.
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: December 15 2010 at 15:47
Originally posted by Any Colour You Like Any Colour You Like wrote:

Indeed.


Care to explain how?

If we take P(x) to be true if and only if x is permitted, then the statement would translate,

(For all x) P(x)

So if we assume that to be true as we are, the negation is obviously false. The negation would be,

(There exist an x) Not-P(x)

So that would be saying there is an element which is impermissible. However, we know that statement is false.


A counterexample would be nice if you're going to remark on something that's intuitively true.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: December 15 2010 at 16:28
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

^ Mike raised the abuse scandal issue yesterday when he posted the quote by Hitchens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss theists' beliefs. Therefore an association between abuse and belief in God is inferred (at least in the case of Catholicism). Otherwise the abuse scandal would be a red herring, an easy target yes, but not relevant to the discussion of theists' beliefs. 

If Mike changed the thread title again, eg ''priests abuse scandal'', then fair enough. But I'm really not going to waste any more time on this, there's already been a thread on the subject
A point of clarification - Mike did not raise the abuse scandal issue, you did. He posted a video of Hitchens criticising Mother Teresa's "good works" in response to my claim that even though she did not perform miracles, the Catholic church should honour her with a "sainthood" in recognition of her good works. You selectively picked out a phrase in that video that appeared (to you) as if Hitchens thought pedastry was worse than hetrosexual child abuse - the subsequent discussion on child abuse within the Catholic church grew from that. If you hadn't picked out that phrase, we would have mentioned it.
 
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss atheist "beliefs" - if such a thread exists that would Teo's Atheist thread. This thread has developed into a discussion of Theism vs. Atheism that has departed significantly from Mikes OP some 3,500 posts ago - and there is nothing wrong with that, we cannot discuss a "humorous" animation for 3500 posts.
 
Confused
 
Dean, I can assure you that Mike did indeed raise the abuse issue. I didn't. If you check that link to my post, you will see it appears on page 169 of this thread and is dated Dec 12 at 11.44 hours. Mike's post, to which I was responding, appears on page 168 and is dated Dec 12 at 09.36 hours. This is what Mike posted:
 
"No child's behind left".

(Christopher Hitchens, about the Catholic church)
 
Clearly a reference to the abuse scandal. I responded to Mike's post with a lengthier quote by Hitchens, not from the video as you say, but from an interview at A. V. Club, and I reference that in my post.
 
Hopefully that clears up this issue once and for all.
(My mistake - I assumed that the AV Club thing was a reference to the video Mike posted)
 
However, there is a whole world of difference between Mike's post and yours with regard to "raising the issue", but have it your way.
 
Well if that's not a poor excuse for an apology I don't know what is. But then it's not any kind of apology because you don't say you're sorry. Then you brush me off with your ''have it your way'' comment.
 
Instead of airing this in the public forum you could have sent me a personal message, but for reasons known to yourself you chose to resurrect something that was finished two days and four pages ago. 
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: December 15 2010 at 16:43
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

 
Well if that's not a poor excuse for an apology I don't know what is. But then it's not any kind of apology because you don't say you're sorry. Then you brush me off with your ''have it your way'' comment.
 
Instead of airing this in the public forum you could have sent me a personal message, but for reasons known to yourself you chose to resurrect something that was finished two days and four pages ago. 
 
Stern Smile
 
It wasn't an apology. I admitted making an error about which Hitchens interview you quoted, but you raised the abuse scandal as a discussion point, not Mike.
 
And I didn't "resurrect" it - I continued something that I considered unfinished but have been too busy to get around to replying to. I won't make that mistake again - I was writing a reply to the post you made this morning, but since I have left it too late I shall delete it unposted.
 
Let's agree to not waste each others time from this moment onwards.
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 172173174

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.