Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

^ One could also argue that listening to music doesn't have any (ultimate) point ... but we do it anyway.

C. S. Lewis PWNs and has some awesome prog about him too

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: After his last post, it's obvious why I don't reply to Textbook, he doesn't want to have a discussion, he has made his mind that he will contradict anything I said even vbefore I said it...And the call religious people close minded.

Yeah, he's a troll, just here to crash discussions not participate

Edited by Nerd42 - November 11 2010 at 11:53

Nightshine wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   The concept of the orbiting teapot is not a mockery at all ... it's simply an analogy to any supernatural claim. Another good analogy is the invisible dragon in the garage from Carl Sagan's classic book Demon Haunted World. Mike, it's not the same at all, religion A book like the Bible written from documents of people who were with Christ Several apocryphal documents that have obvious similarities with the original text. Documented miracles and experiences, some of them have been tried to be disproved by science (specially medical science), with no success An organized body of beliefs followed by billion Have survived thousands of years You can claim you give no importance to any of them, but they exist and you can't deny that,, while the flying teapot and the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage are only  product of the imagination of one man, with no ideology, documents, organization, followers or people who claims their existence. Yes, I know you will give examples of false beliefs with followers or ideology, but none of them in the level of Christianity and most of the religions, and of course in no way a flying teapot. Both are arrogant and futile attempts of making mockery of our beliefs. Iván PD: After his last post, it's obvious why I don't reply to Textbook, he doesn't want to have a discussion, he has made his mind that he will contradict anything I said even vbefore I said it...And the call religious people close minded. Oh you slap me on the knee some days. 1. It's not a documentation.  It's fiction. 2. Fanfiction 3. All I have to tell you is that gravity was discovered, and your entire point goes moot. 4. Billions of delusional people.  Billions believed the earth was the center of the universe for ages and ages. 5. Thousands of years of delusion. Once again, read the bible from a literary standpoint, and it's an entire text about how knowledge has damaged humanity, which is -far- from the truth.  (Adam and Eve story immediately comes to mind). ~I'm signing my posts like a self-important jerk now, Nightshine

Do you think that if you just keep repeating "the Bible is fiction" enough times, people will just start saying "Oh yeah, you're right! What a fool I've been"?

Or would you like to contribute something useful to the discussion?

Nightshine wrote:   Oh you slap me on the knee some days. Not trying to slap anybody, just exposing my arguments, arguments which by the wauy you said tghat don't matter in a forum 1. It's not a documentation.  It's fiction. Do you have any argument? 2. Fanfiction Cool, you pretend to destroy an argument with a word that doesn't exist. 3. All I have to tell you is that gravity was discovered, and your entire point goes moot.What's the connection between the law of gravity and any documented miracle cure that science can't explain? 4. Billions of delusional people.  Billions believed the earth was the center of the universe for ages and ages. This reminds me of an old joke, "A guy listens in the radio "watch out, there's a mad man going against the traffic in the highway...The guy takes his cellphone calls the station and with agitated voice shout "Not one...Millions are against the traffic" 5. Thousands of years of delusion. Again...Any argument? Once again, read the bible from a literary standpoint, and it's an entire text about how knowledge has damaged humanity, which is -far- from the truth.  (Adam and Eve story immediately comes to mind). If you would had been here before, or at least read a bit, you would already know that the vast majority of Christians (at least 2/3) don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible ~I'm signing my posts like a self-important jerk now, Nightshine I sign whatever I write, as a sign of respect to the other members and as a way of making responsible for what I say, also use my real name because I don't need to hide behind a nick to say   something, you don't even dare to give your name or location in your profile as most of the members here do. Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Nightshine wrote:   Oh you slap me on the knee some days. Not trying to slap anybody, just exposing my arguments, arguments which by the wauy you said tghat don't matter in a forum 1. It's not a documentation.  It's fiction. Do you have any argument? 2. Fanfiction Cool, you pretend to destroy an argument with a word that doesn't exist. 3. All I have to tell you is that gravity was discovered, and your entire point goes moot.What's the connection between the law of gravity and any documented miracle cure that science can't explain? 4. Billions of delusional people.  Billions believed the earth was the center of the universe for ages and ages. This reminds me of an old joke, "A guy listens in the radio "watch out, there's a mad man going against the traffic in the highway...The guy takes his cellphone calls the station and with agitated voice shout "Not one...Millions are against the traffic" 5. Thousands of years of delusion. Again...Any argument? My argument is that religious people lack the proof in order to back up their claims as truth.  You can't just say unicorns and flying teapots exist without showing evidence to this. Once again, read the bible from a literary standpoint, and it's an entire text about how knowledge has damaged humanity, which is -far- from the truth.  (Adam and Eve story immediately comes to mind). If you would had been here before, or at least read a bit, you would already know that the vast majority of Christians (at least 2/3) don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible And there's where your argument ends.  Without any insight or interpretation to your literature, then all you're doing is following something blindly. ~I'm signing my posts like a self-important jerk now, Nightshine I sign whatever I write, as a sign of respect to the other members and as a way of making responsible for what I say, also use my real name because I don't need to hide behind a nick to say   something, you don't even dare to give your name or location in your profile as most of the members here do. Iván It makes you come off as self-righteous.

Edited by Nightshine - November 11 2010 at 14:15

No we don't. I think your religious opinions are totally loony and I don't respect them at all. Nor should I be expected to.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Nightshine wrote:   God, it's an exact copy of what Mike said at the beginning of this thread (even when he was careful to sound coherent) and what you can read in any atheist blog....Do you even have a mind of your own, even your examples are copied? Hypocrite.  You are accusing me of making an absolutely unrelated reply, and yet you make one just as unrelated.  Also, the point still stands, regardless of its originality.  I don't need to argue seriously with anyone on these boards because they can't make solid arguments themselves. Now...You do have a comprehension problem, I say "We do't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible" and you reply  that we follow the Bile blindly. Absolutely unrelated reply. It's a completely related reply, because you don't ask why to the given text in front of you.  Without interpretation, one can just say something is true and fly with it, without looking at all the aspects of the given media form.  You remind me of one of those MTV kids almost.  It's funny. If it's according to your eyes, I honestly couldn't care less Aww, what's the matter, Ivan...getting mad because I'm not even trying and I'm denouncing your fictional book? When you're able to make a coherent argument which makes me want to try, come back to me and then we can discuss your flying teapots of salvation. Nightshine wrote: To llama as well: Give me a reason why I should take this thread, let alone the forums, seriously. Because people is giving serious and personal arguments, so if you are not able to do the same, better shut up....In this forum we respect the opinions. Iván They don't seem so serious to me, especially since they're so easily refutable. Do not expect me in a million years to respect anything (like religion) of which has caused society so many problems.

I haven't and am not going to read the 149 pages of posts that have gone into this thread so I hope it's OK to join in without having done that. If not just say so and I'll just shut up :)

I am a theist, so I can see myself defending at least some forms of theism.

I am a Christian, so I can see myself defending at least some forms of Christianity.

But although I see myself as a "religious person" I cannot see any way to defend "religion" as such, because the term is so ambiguous and it's rapidly becoming a vague pejorative term for anything the speaker sees as "irrational" by which they usually mean "unscientific" because they can't be bothered to distinguish between concepts of science and rationality. Usually when people talk about "religion" they mean, simply, Christianity or Islam. If Christians and Muslims are who you are talking about, it would be much better, all things considered, to name names and discuss the various religions directly. Grouping them all as "religion" is like trying to attack New York City by attacking "apples." I can't see the point in defending the Big Apple by defending "apples."

I can argue with the statement, "God does not exist" because, assuming the speaker can clearly define what (s)he means by God and by existence, or with the statement, "God is unjust" assuming the speaker can clearly define what (s)he means by justice and can demonstrate their claim by example. I can argue with these statements because they express propositions that can be either true or false.

But I cannot argue with Nietzsche's view that "God is dead" for it does not express a logical proposition, but a mere feeling or sentiment. Nietzsche seems to have provided not so much an argument for atheism or even for misotheism but has painted a picture which the viewer/reader is free to interpret in any way they please. Unless there is a specific objective truth claim being made, there can be nothing to argue about.

I think people who criticize "religion" and are frustrated when people ask what they mean by religion are, I think, making the kind of statement that Nietzche made, with which no argument is possible for their criticism does not express any propositions.

Edited by Nerd42 - November 11 2010 at 15:20

Nightshine wrote:  . It's a completely related reply, because you don't ask why to the given text in front of you.  Without interpretation, one can just say something is true and fly with it, without looking at all the aspects of the given media form.  You remind me of one of those MTV kids almost.  It's funny.

Existence is the only truth, it is also the biggest fallacy.