Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Small Town Theocracy
Citizens of Hesperia, California, Mayor Rita Vogler knows what religion you should be - and by God, she's going to use your money to enforce it by fighting any church/state separation suit that gets filed against the city for installing a "In God We Trust" sign in the City Council chambers.
[link] "Obviously, I won't go crazy with taxpayer dollars, but I think it's time for cities and states and counties to stand up for who we are,"
So, Mayor Vogler wants to use *other people's* money to "stand up" for who SHE thinks "we are".
Well, golly! I always wanted a Mayor to tell me what religion I should be, and how to express myself religiously - you know, through the power of the government, using MY OWN MONEY.
I mean, goodness gracious! It takes all the worry out of it when all I have to do is follow the religion that the government tells me to follow, not to mention having to pay for the privilege!
You see, that is the essence of concept of the separation of church and state. THAT is where it crosses the line from simple acknowledgment to government endorsement.
Mayor Vogler, you have just told all of the non-Christian citizens in your city that they are second-class, not worthy of consideration, and beneath your contempt - except as cash machines to finance your little theocratic power trip.
Heheheh... Good luck with that!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I am going to jump in!
Why do Christians never answer the questions we posed? I been around for a year, lurking the shadows but now I am coming out. Joe, it is simple as this; if god is so real then why is it so subjective. The human mind is a very fragile thing indeed. Every time I talk to a real life Christian, it like I am talking to a sock puppet. I want to sharpen my mind some more so could you guys. Brent, Jim,Dirk and Thameron seems like you guys are interesting people to talk to.
Uncomfortability Factor
Myron-
To answer your original question "why the theists won't answer our questions", I can only guess. My guess is that the questions are too uncomfortable. They can't answer these questions, because the questions shatter their illusions. If they actually think about the questions, their own faith sounds improbable. Not all theists are like that. I have a few friends who believe in god, but when confronted with logic admit their faith is illogical and they don't care. I have much more respect for those people who can admit that their god belief is really a deep down hope. Sort of a 'meaning of life' type thing.
Myron - The answer to your question
Is that after you peel away all the layers of obfuscation there at the core of their belief is one simple phrase: "I believe this because someone told me it was true and because I feel that it is true." Usually they want to sound more authoritative and don't want to admit this but the Mormons who came to my door the other day were actually pretty up front with that. I told them that things were not true because we feel them to be true and sent them on their way. It is likely that they did not hear me.
As for being interesting to talk to, I try. I am not sure exactly how it happened, some mistranscription of genetic code or chance circumstance perhaps, but from birth or environment I acquired a desire to understand what I was and how I came to be here. Only science provides anything like a reliable answer. There is a lot of ground to cover with just those two questions: cosmology, astronomy, geology, chemistry, and biology. Stepping away from mythology (except insofar as what it might tell us about human psychology) is the first step to true understanding of the world which gave rise to us. I hope that the quest for understanding makes me interesting to talk to as well as informed. Welcome to the siblinghood of the pariahs. :)
All Knowing
Well, huh! Apparently you are. To be able to know what is thought--and why--by everyone who doesn't think like you do is quite an amazing feat. 'Course, you're wrong. I don't believe because of a feeling or because someone told me to. I believe based on all the data.
When I read some of these entries, I have to ask why anyone would ever "answer our questions" as someone protested. Besides all the hate that gets thrown at them, they realize that most here are past the point of being really honest with the contributors. You see yourselves as pariahs, and then do what those in a minority often do: take on an elitist attitude. You make fun of others for what you see as fairy tales, and never square with the faith or even wishful thinking that you perpetrate yourselves. Methinks ye doth protest too much. Are you trying to convince yourselves?
Go ahead. Talk to yourselves. You're like a covey of quail that never interacts with other covies. The gene pool gets so reduced that flight can hardly be achieved.
Perhaps, though, this is what you want. Maybe the best way to not have to confront your own faith is to chase off the world. There is none so deaf as he who won’t hear.
Well bizarre quail analogies aside
Really? All the data? I certainly don't claim to be all-knowing as you say nor indeed am I in possession of ALL the data as you have claimed to be, but I have seen NO data which supports the existence of a deity. What do you believe and upon what data do you base that belief? If you have data to present then by all means let's have it.
And remember all it will take to convince me there is a deity is incontravertable proof whereas with most believers there is no lack of evidence so large as to shake their faith.
All the data...
was not a reference to omniscience, but an attempt to say that I don't pick and choose which data I will accept. "All the data" means all that I have come in contact with--which is likely at least as broad an amount as yours.
Further, your reference to religious people hanging on to their faith no matter what is just plain silly. Puh-leese. Don't spout that kind of laughable hyperbole. It shows the depth of your experience and thinking.
If you want incontrovertible evidence, look to math or pure logic, not the real world where all things are known only on a probability basis.
Lastly--as has been stated on this site--there isn't enough evidence that there isn't a God to persuade most thinking individuals. This isn't a flaw in majority/minority thinking; truth isn't known by a head count. It's a flaw in your evidence. It just plain is lacking, period, let alone is it "incontrovertible." Show me incontrovertibly that there is no God, and I WILL become one of you! Until that time, have the integrity to admit you're living by faith. A rather obdurate one at that.
Gimme a break....
Sigh
You are making the claim that god exists not me. The onus of evidence is on you. I asked you what you believed and what evidence you had for it and suddenly somehow I need to prove a negative. If you told me you bought a car I'd believe you. If you told me you went for a bike ride I'd believe you. If you tell me there is an imperceptibe intelligence responsible for creating the universe, routinely violating the laws of physics for a certain few favored humans and herding ephemeral spirits around in the afterlife and you know who it is well then I will ask for the evidence. You have provided no evidence. I also have no doubts that someone else put the concept of a deity into your head and that it no doubt feels right to you.
Deja Vu
Thameron-
I was struck by the absurdity of that statement as well. When you asked what data? The reply was-
What the hell does that mean, all that I have come in contact with? You mean like cars, planes, buildings, bricks, animals and such? I can prove to you a brick exists by dropping one on you. Can you drop a god on me? I don't think so. You can't drop an abstract idea like god on someone. Obviously, you can be brainwashed into believing in an abstract idea, but you can never actually touch it physically.
If I am standing over you and drop a brick, the probability is 100 percent, the brick will land on you and you will feel it. I suppose adding a variable like a tornado could reduce that probability, but let's not get too cute here.
It's like deja vu all over again. On this very thread, Joe used the same dumbass arguement. "Prove to me that god doesn't exist". How does that make sense? I can't show you that something doesn't exist, that doesn't exist. And now hear comes Wes making the arguement even more ridiculous with this statement..."have the integrity to admit you're living by faith". No. Faith is the belief in something intangible. Physical evidence is tangible and therefore, the opposite of faith. Why is that so difficult for some theists to understand?
This brings us back to proof. I can't prove unicorns, elves, Santa, the Easter Bunny, etcetra, don't exist. It's YOUR friggin fairy tale. If you want me to believe in elves, show me one. If you want me to believe your fairy tale is actually real, show me. When you are able to show me, it can no longer be considered a fairy tale.
Double sigh....
This is 2007. Get up to speed. The onus is squarely and fully on you. Have you read any philosophy at all? It is not, nor has it ever been, the domain of those accepting Deity to prove their position, inasmuch as it is as normative for humans to believe in Deity as nearly any other conceptual fact has ever been. It is fundamentally human. You're the one making the claim there is no Deity, not me.
Actually, you're wrong again about the feeling thing. Sorry! I don't base my life on emotion--it's why I've studied this aspect of life nearly every single day for the past 25+ years. Literally. Do you feel you might be going by feeling? Or by a desire to not have a Deity so you can tell yourself you can do as you please?
As for putting a Deity in my head, again puhleeeeees. One can't live a half century and never bump into the concept of God. Has no one every suggested to you that they think there may not be one?
Finally, I could be here for months on end detailing line after line after line of data the trajectory of which is clearly anti- atheistic. Again, if you're wanting a perfect syllogism you're going to live in a very small world.
Perhaps one quick line will give you something to twist, although many honest former atheists have eventually admited its cogency. Complex information is naturally taken to have originated from an intelligent source--exactly as you take what you are reading this moment as non-random thought. The onus of disproof would be on someone saying these paragraphs were accidental electrical surges switching transistors toward a quintessentially fortuitous product that only "looks like" designed information. Every other human knows it comes from an author. Hubert Yockey is someone you might want to get to know here. The amount of information in one of your 15 quadrillion cells is, as you know, thousands of volumes more informationally intensive. But you want me to think the onus is on me to say that it only looks that way? C'mon, man!!! Get honest.
As a matter of fact
I do have a calendar and while it does have pictures of dogs on it nowhere does it say that its time for me to prove all the various concepts of god (of which there are many) are false. No matter what year it is if you make the extrodinary claim, you provide the proof of the claim or you give up on any expectation of rational people believing it. Next year it will be the same. At present I do not believe in God because there is no evidence supporting this assertion. Where is your proof that Thor and Zeus are not real? What about Allah? Lots of people believe in Allah so that must be true right? Where is your proof that it isn't? Let me guess. You don't have any. I certainly have run across deity concepts in my slightly less than half century. Without evidence to support any of them I have rejected them all. You apparently have chosen to accept one and reject the others for reasons you will not state preferring instead to demand proof of a negative which I am hoping you will provide for all of the deity concepts which you have summarily rejected. Unless of course its because the person whose deity concept you've accepted was proximate to you and because all of those others just don't feel right.
Complexity arises due to the cylical flow of energy through a system and the laws of thermodynamics which encourage more efficient energy dissipation than complete randomness provides unless you'd care to state that the patterns of each and every sand dune are personally overseen by God (maybe he delegates that)? God sounds like a pretty complex being so it must have been an even more complex God that designed him right? If god was such a great designer then why have most species that have ever lived gone extinct? Why aren't there trilobites swimming in my ocean? Why can't I get a triceratop ride at the local fair? Some perfect designs those were.
Why can't you just answer the question?
How do you know there is no God? And if you don't know, then admit an element of faith to your position. It's that easy, Thameron! You don't have to have some kind of OCD complex about feeling--just answer the question or admit you have that your position isn't mathematical.
I will make this as simple as possible
The existence of an imperceptible intelligence responsible for various things including the creation and ongoing guidance of the universe is an extrordinary claim. It is unreasonable to conclude that such a being exists without strong evidence to support that extrordinary claim. To date no such evidence has been presented. Therefore I have concluded that god does not exist. Should incontrovertible evidence be forthcoming in the future then I will perforce change my view. I have no idea what you mean by 'mathematical' we aren't discussing differential equations here. I consider my position on this to be 'reasonable', 'rational' and 'logical' and also 'sane' if I wanted to be nasty about it.
Your turn. How do you know Allah, Thor or Zeus aren't the deity? What proof do you have that they aren't the deity? You did prove that they weren't before accepting an alternate right?
Upside down
You don't get it, do you? Your position is the one that is the odd man out on planet earth. Again, this doesn't make it false, but because belief in Deity is so desperately human, the onus is on you. You are the one saying intelligence only looks like it, but it's a chimera. Thameron, you aren't stupid! Far from it! But you seem to be epistemologically stuck on empiricism. You sound like an old positivist. They have been gone since when--the '60s?!? Connect the logic dots, man--not just the sensory ones!
I will not go on to deflection questions. You act like a Mormon at someone's door that doesn't want to answer, so attempts to escape by means of filibuster. It's a debate tactic I won't be a player to.
So far, you haven't had the integrity to come out and admit you can't prove your position, and that therefore the way you treat others is hypocritical because yours is a life of faith as well. I'm sorry for you if that is troubling, but there is a real world out there.
Oh I get it alright
I answered your question but you can't answer mine.
Being human means I have a certain DNA configuration. It doesn't mean that I accept extrordinary claims without evidence.
You cannot prove to me that Allah, Thor and Zeus are not the One True God nor admit that you do not accept them because someone else closer told you that Jesus/Jehovah was The One True God with the same amount of evidence i.e. None and that you have rejected Allah, Thor and Zeus on the basis of feeling alone.
Not so. Although we are a small percentage of the planets population we are growing. I am not alone.
The absolute lack of evidence already proves my position. If that lack changes then my position will change accordingly. You have yet to state what it will take to change yours. If the answer is not nothing then what is it?
You reject empiricism? Does this mean that you believe anything anyone tells you? Does this mean you believe that Allah, Thor and Zeus are gods?
And you know that there is a real world out here how exactly if you are not using your senses?
I accept your surrender.
You should play for the Dodgers
It is your sole means of debate.
I stated my views
and the reasons for them clearly and concisely. If you cannot understand them then I do not know how much simpler I could make them so that you would. Would that you were so forthcoming. If there is an unartful dodger here it is certainly you and not me. I am still waiting for your proofs that Allah, Zeus, Thor et al. are not true gods. You must have such proofs since you asked them of me in regards to your own deity. Unless I was right. At the core of your belief is that someone told you that a particular view of God, a doctrine and a dogma was the correct one and you rejected the thousands of others because you felt that they were wrong. I thank you for proving my point. Your obfuscations and mealy mouthed mumblings about complexity have exemplified my original statement. You really should shore up the foundations of your beliefs before you start arguments with a reductionist.
First inning first
I'm fine to tell you why I think one "religion" is the clear choice over others. No problem. I'm also pleased to tell you how I arrived at such, though due to the medium here, briefly.
But let's wrap up the bottom of the first inning before we go on. Your inability to prove your position and your reference to evidence as you currently see it implies that you admit that, in the final analysis, yours is a position that involves at least an element of faith.
Am I correct?
As a matter of fact no
If what you are talking about is faith in something beyond the bounds of the known laws of physics then the answer is no.
It isn't up to me to prove the non-existence of your deity. It's up to you to tell us how your deity is exempted from the proofs you used to conclude that all the other deities are false but yours is not. Please feel free to do that at any time. If you feel space is a problem then my advice to you is to leave out the quail and baseball analogies.
So if it isn't a matter of faith
then you can prove it. If you cannot, then it is. Short enough?
Nothing like the purposefully obtuse
Look I will say it for the umpteenth time although I don't expect you to get it this time any more than the others. I am not in the business of proving universal negatives, you are. You have proven all of the worlds religions false to yourself except for one using a method which obviously will not stand up to scrutiny because you refuse to reveal it lest it wither in the light of day. So tell us if you can what is the test that all the other religions have failed, but your religion has managed to pass? How did you prove all of the others as false? I wont hold my breath waiting for an answer from you.
To wrap up
Thameron, here is the point I was trying to make through all of this. I think it is a point you understand, for as I said you are very bright. The question initially had nothing to do with a specific religion, it had to do with Deity period. Outside of things like pure mathematics or perfect syllogisms, we live, ALL of us, in a world marked by varying degrees of faith. I'm quite certain my chair is going to hold me up until I finish here, but, not having been able to explore all the physics of it, I don't KNOW that it will. I have faith in it because of a host of factors, all of which add up to a very high probability. It is also possible that the evil Zwingaans' mother ship is parked behind the moon and is about to destroy planet earth, but I tend to hold it quite unlikely. I don't KNOW it, I'm just factoring in all the probabilities that I am, in my finiteness, aware of.
All worldviews, including yours whether you like it not (and it appears you don't), involve varying amounts of faith. Your complaints about not being able to prove a negative reveal therefore, in a tautology, that an element of faith is involved with your position. The debate becomes, then, one over amount and quality of evidence/probability. This is inescapable, and I think you actually know it.
So then, let me answer your superimposed secondary question. I am, as you may guess, a Christian. But I am not one that is faith first, everything else second. I would be reductionist myself, though not a positivist as you appear to be. Ockham's razor is a wonderful tool. As it happens, my primary, but not only, lines of reason regarding Deity involve cosmology and teleology. I believe, having explored the evidence to this point in my life, that it takes more credulity to hold to natural causes than to supernatural ones. Ockham, in my mind, is on my side here, though you think he is on yours. Both contain elements of faith or probability. To go further, however, as to "which" religion, involves, as it must, other data. No one has the time or ability to ferret out all of life's enigmas, so I won't go on to Thor or Zeus (a bit farther afield than quail or baseball). However, using the reductionist-friendly methodology of non-contradiction, I don't have to. The reason for this is that I find the evidence for Christianity convincing. In so much as Christ's claims are mutually exclusive with other religions, this is how I have "proved" false—your word here, not mine—those other religions. Again, I could be wrong about the evidence, so there is an element of faith involved (probabilities factor in), but if I am right, those other gods are wrong. My rationale for Christianity's priority has more than one line of attack. I would use a minimalistic approach and say that even if one could dismiss portions of the New Testament as pseudapigraphic, spurious, etc., etc., there are portions that just cannot fall under such categories, as scholars of all stripes concede--to include virtually all the atheists of which I am aware that have contributed to the subject. These foundational, admittedly genuine documents still contain more than enough historical data to warrant the conclusion that the basic pillars of NT kerygma is historically reliable enough to be taken seriously. Further, there are very specific streams/themes of Hebrew Messianism that can be followed on a minimalistic approach. I'm not talking here of lightweight prooftexting, but about major themes that run from the Pentateuch through Malachi that are woven deep into the fabric of those documents, but that are also woven deep into the NT data that is accepted as historical by the most critical of scholars. These details are also beyond the manipulation of 1st century people, so that fraud or faked “fulfillment after the fact” is not possible.
There are multiple other rational reasons I am a Christian, but none of this was the topic of the thread.
This will be my final interaction on this thread, so any comments you make, such as "I won't hold my breath" will be moot. The vast majority of thinkers admit that every worldview involves probability, and thus an element of faith. I hope you can be honest enough with yourself to admit that you don't KNOW your position in an omniscient way, and so yours involves some faith as well.
Faith And Begorra
I am sorry to hear that. Thank you for your comments. That being said, I will go ahead and reply to you anyway. Perhaps you will respond, or perhaps not.
Yes, there are different kinds of "faith". James Randi, in his classic work The Faith Healers, discusses three types:
Type III faith is a given. None of us could operate in our world with our limited senses without it. That is the type of faith that I, and most atheists I know exhibit.
So, strictly speaking, yes, we do have "faith". Type III.
Now, religious belief is either Type I or Type II faith - that is to say, belief in the face of contradictory evidence, or belief with little or no evidence.
It is a large, long, absolutely blind leap of Type I or II faith to go from a document that contains some maybe-kinda accurate historical records - to "the fact that there are some historical parts of the Bible is evidence that there is a magical invisible man in the sky who made everything with magic - and furthermore, I have a deeply personal relationship with this all-powerful creator where I speak to him daily, he is concerned with every aspect of my life, he loves me, and when I die I will go to live with him for eternity in perfect bliss. Oh, and his name is Jesus Christ, and he's also three beings in one."
There are rational reasons for being a deist such as many of our Founding Fathers, or Anthony Flew.
There is nothing rational about Christianity. It is the very definition of "irrational".
Thank you, Brent
As you know, I had told Thameron that I was ending this. However, since you are new (to this particular thread), and left the door open for me to respond, I'd like to briefly, though wrapping up is still my intention.
I agree with almost everything you said. I would hold that your Type III faith was the very point I was attempting to get across to Thameron. Your position and his is as you say, strictly speaking, a position involving faith. Though I imagine you'll disagree, it is precisely, exactly, the kind of faith of my own viewpoint. I do realize there are other Christians of Type I and Type II faith. In the case of Type I, it is pathetic that this is the case. It is also the case, however, that there are atheists in both of those categories.
About the only substantive disagreement I would have with you would be with adjectives. If (for the sake of argument) there were overwhelming reasons to hold to a created universe, and if there were overwhelming reasons to believe that Christ did indeed rise on the 3rd day, it would no longer be "blind" faith. It would still be only probable (since outside the realms of math or syllogism) and thus still containing an element of faith. But in that case, one could not say it was "blind" faith. Your response will be, I presume, that we do not have such overwhelming evidence for any of the above. My own research over decades has brought me to the conclusion, however, that my position is the one best supported by all the evidence of which I am aware. It is still a faith position, but it is in no way blind faith. I would have great difficulty with a Kierkegaardian approach. Further, the deistic concept, whether held by Jefferson, Flew, or whomever, has no bearing on my rationale for Thameron’s interjected tangent, for it as well would be in error if the miracle accounts of the NT documents are reliable.
Finally, Brent, you “quit preaching and went to meddling” in your final paragraph. To state that there is “nothing” rational about Christianity and that it is the very “definition of irrational” is to speak far more like a pontiff than an academic. It is likely that I am as well-versed in the entire subject as you, and I think that your position is irrational. I am not, however, going to try to simply stamp my feet and shout you down.
Thank you for allowing me space on your site. My hope and desire for you is certainly all the best.
Okay it like this.
Let pick any religion if you like. Why so many sect huh? You might try to elude me any saying that "But there is only one true god" So if that is the case then everyone else is wasting their time. Then you can look at the stance at prayer. You can pray to a milk jug, monkey,god,yourself or anything else in middle.
Okay say a Christians pray to God because they are poor and need money. Here is the two stance on this issue. One that person that prays to god finds money on the ground, he will say thank god. Money does not just appear in thin air so there is must be a reason for that. The best possibility is someone might had drop it.
The other stance is that it not in god's plan. The problem with that statement is that your claiming to know god's solution. It like this if your fat, you know that you cause it. No one else is responsible for it. So what do you do? Pray to god or stop eating that twinkle and revamping your life. So is it god's plan for you to suffer and get fat or is it your cause?
My sister which is a christian says that god has a plan for everyone. So I said that then humans do not have free will. Then my sister said that we do because it are choice. So what the problem with that statement. I can sum this up with one quote. "The best way does not lead to the best results"
I prefer 00 Buckshot when hunting invisible pink unicorns...
Damn. He caught us with that one. Proving the non-existance of something is so easy, I'm surprised no atheist has done so already. Obviously, GOD must exist. I wonder if he'd like to go hunting invisible pink unicorns with me sometime. Hey, maybe he'll invite the FSM to come along - they got to be Buds, right?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The enemy in the mirror
If you can't prove your position, why do you behave as though you can? Why do you put on as if it isn't a faith position? Are you, just possibly, that which you label others with? A--dare I say it in mixed company--hypocrite?
I, too, prefer double 'ought when I'm hunting stray ergs and ohms and amps that, (dang it!), just keep looking like there is intelligence behind them when I know there's not. I know it, I know it, I know it! And everyone else who believes differently is a moronic neatherthal.
In fact
They're so moronic they spell like Cro-magnons.
Ditto from me
Please do jump in and don't worry about making a fool of yourself. Since I joined recently, the older wiser folks here have been nothing but supportive and patient. The old saying "there is no such thing as a dumb question" seems to be true here.
Dirk
Well, yeah. Of course.
Jump right on in, Myron, the water's fine. Good to have you at the party.
As far as being interesting...I can't speak for the others, but in my case of course it's true. :)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The standard disclaimer
In an effort to appear all inclusive, she will use the standard christian disclaimer:
We all worhip the same god
but they don't. Even the different sects of christianity don't worship the same god. Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans etc. all worship different gods - gods which support their agenda. The faithful just have never thought about it because those wouldn't be good thoughts, now, would they ?
Whaaaaaaaaaat?
Different "gods" among the groups listed? Well........your slip is showing. You must have no real first-hand knowledge of Christian theology or you wouldn't make such an unsupported statement! Differences? Yes. Fundamental exchanges of God's nature? Nope.
Yes - Different Gods
Yes - they are ALL different gods. Some have loving gods, some have vengeful gods, some have micro-managing gods - all very different. If you pray to some of these gods, they will heal your physical ailments or give you riches. Others will tell you to buck up and accept your place in society. Some will tell you to turn the other cheek while others will tell you to smite your enemy. You are the one who hasn't looked very deeply into your christianity.
Sorry!
Nope. What you are describing are secondary or tertiary subset views of the Christian God, Who in all branches of Christianity (Roman, Eastern, Protestant) is the same in Nature. He is One, Triune, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Immutable, Eternal and Redemptive. Having taught Systematic Theology at the university level for some years, let me just say as kindly as I can that it is you that is speaking outside your depth.
Anonymous Theologian
Okay, Mr. Theologian. If the Gods are indeed the same, why the schisms? What is the purpose of having Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc...?
I grew up as a Lutheran, but went to a Catholic church for a short time. Very different experiences. You might be correct about them being the same god, but they worship/interpret that god in very different ways. The Lutherans seemed to be more about peace and love while the Catholics worshipped a much more vengful demanding god. As someone who experienced both, I can see why one would say they are different gods. Both gods had much in common as you mentioned(omnipotence, omniscience, etc...) but demand worship in very different ways.
After you explain all of that, I want to hear your explanation of Mormonism. You can't seriously tell me those kooks worship the same god as the rest of Xianity? They believe their ancestors ARE gods. Like I said before, similarities maybe, but definitely not the same god.
Anyway, what is your malfunction? This is an atheist website. Do you really think we appreciate your supposed corrections? What's next, if I say that Santa had 7 reindeer, are you going to correct me? You taught classes based on mythology and superstition. Wow! Big deal. You teach nonsense. Now you come here to make sure we don't misunderstand something we don't believe in? Get a life.
Well...
I thought atheists considered themselves free-thinkers. Evidently they are not. You only want to talk to other atheists? "Stay off our site and don't bother us with facts!"? I see.
You are correct about one thing; how people have responded to God has been divergent. The point, however, was that the fundamental things about that God are the same across all of Christianity.
Mormonism is a heterodox sect, so I haven't addressed it. Neither have I ever taught mythology or superstition, so can't address those topics as well as you.
I do have a life, though! Perhaps you should try it!
Facts: thanks for the clarification
Okay, you win, they are the same god. Who cares? Must be important to you. I guess I would feel that way if my paycheck depended on it. Ha! Theologian, what a worthless profession. At least a priest convinces people things will be okay if they just follow the correct rituals. What do you give to society? You my friend are a parasite.
And yes, we are free thinkers, but we just don't spend much time thinking about fairy tales. Care to enlighten us with science, reason, logic? Oh, I forgot. You don't have 'faith' in the tangible.
If you have any more really important 'facts' to add to the discussion please, come back soon.
Actually, I do.
It is because I have "faith" in the tangible that I am driven to not be an atheist. The universe is here, after all.
What scientific PROOF do you have for believing in the fairy tale of hydrogen gas appearing ex nihilo and then accidently becoming the brain of an atheist after a few eons?
Ex Nihilo Logic
Here we go again. Because I can't prove how the universe came into being, I should assume a supernatural being must have done it. Great. That makes sense, I can't believe the rational explanation, so I must assume god did it. That about sums it up, huh? Since, you know everything about the creator, who created the creator? And the creators creators creator? And so on and on. Brilliant use of circular logic and irrationality there pal.
Why is the onus of proof on me anyway? I am not the one making fantastic claims. What I can do is point to eons old dinosaur bones and the fossil record to prove that life evolves in a natural way. I say the burden of proof is on you. Make god show himself to me. Just once, give us some evidence. What, are the fossils that can be proven to be millions of years old a ruse? Are all six collaborative methods of carbon dating some elaborate trick to make us believe in evolution?
And furthermore, scientists today are not pursuing 'out of nothing' explanations as you want to believe. Check out M Theory sometime.
I thought about it and changed my mind. I can think of something you are good for...starting wars over who's make believe gods are better. Gotta love theologians. You are the one using ex nihilo logic. Meaning, you pulled it out of you arse.
No?
No? You can't prove it? Then don't mock another position as if it is by faith when yours is wholly fideist. "Kooks", I think you refer to them as.
Actually, the onus IS on you. There simply is inadequate evidence that there is no Creator. You are at least 15 years out of touch in this one aspect of thought alone. Alvin Plantinga nearly two decades ago showed that belief in God is ontologically basic--like the belief that other minds typing things on a blog are real and not imaginary. It's your game to lose.
-Joe
Fideist Joe
First of all professor Joe, you should take the time to learn the meanings of the words you use. It sounds silly to accuse an atheist of fideism. Maybe I should start at the beginning. Theism is the belief in a deity. Atheism is the opposite. We don't believe in god or gods. We don't accept supernatural explanations. Fideism means a reliance on faith and a rejection of science. Perhaps you meant to use a different word?
I normally don't go around mocking people of faith except when they decide to troll on this site. It's not like I went to your church and called you names. You asked for it.
Really? You can't prove that Unicorns don't exist. Does that mean you believe in Unicorns also? You see where this sort of twisted logic leads? You can make up any dumbass myth you want and claim it is real. When your funny little claim is rejected, your reply is "prove it." As if that argument makes it a reality. I guess this is where your theodicy kicks in. God exists in your head. So figuratively speaking, god is real to you, that is. I can't prove that god doesn't exist in your head.
I feel like I am talking to a mental patient. Sorry, I just can't see your imaginary friend. You need some evidence if I am to believe. Show me.
15 years? Please. I didn't need Planinga(whoever that is) to tell me god belief is common in humans. I said common, not basic. Humans have been making up religions since we began to speak. Probably before even. Right now, there are over 6000 religions on the planet. More are started every year. My personal favorite is the Cargo Cult.
We are creatures of incredible imaginations. Sometimes that imagination helps us. Sometimes it hurts. However, not all humans take their imaginations as reality. Some of us realize, that our imagination is not reality. We are called atheists.
No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's golden plates story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Xian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc. Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?
That being said, you are actually an atheist too. I just believe in one less god than you do.
Okey dokey. If you say so. However, the challenge I put to you is to answer my questions using logic and reason. Non-circular logic would be nice for a change.
I go away for a few days...
...and miss all the fun!
Good job, Dirk & Brent!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Good job?
I see the same interchange differently. Dirk in particular didn't help the uti cause any.
"Cause?"
Sorry, I must have missed something...what is "the uti cause?"
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The UTI Cause
Well, goodness Jim! The UTI Cause is, of course, nothing less than total world domination and the enslaving of all Christians everywhere to serve our evil atheist needs and desires until the end of time itself.
Duh.
Inadequate
Actually, I was just referring to the desire to advance atheistic thought. Dirk especially came across as blue collar in a field needing white collar input. Pretty poor. Sarcasm doesn't close the gap, either.
Classism.
Oh, give me a break, please. Just because you might think that blue collar folks are somehow intellectually lacking doesn't mean that they can't very well see the truth of the matter for themselves if given a chance. His comment about having a fine-tuned bullshit detector is right on - nothing more is needed.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Declassified
Having made my living as a blue collar guy, let me then, since you can't seem to get the REAL point, use a different metaphor: Lots of wind. No rain.
I am but an egg...
Apologies, master. I am but an egg...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Not a bad idea
Christians do have that whole 'if this life is crappy that means that the afterlife will be really good.' thing going. Makes suffering a virtue.* Although it might contradict our sense of morality we will have to make their slavery unpleasant so that they will feel properly persecuted and thus virtuous.
*this excludes the subset of Christians who believe the deity gives out rewards and punishments in the here and now rather than the afterlife in which case we should be worshipping the rich, healthy people because they are obviously enjoying god's favor and spitting on the poor, sick people because they have obviously angered god. Wait a minute with the culture of celebrity don't we already do this? Nevermind.
Theo-logic
Jim-
He's right. I am an inadequate spokesman for atheism. A real doctor would be able to explain the In Vitro Fertilization process and necessity for embryionic stem cell research much better than I can. A real biologist would shred the notions of creationism and ID. A real physicist would crush the cosmic arguement of humanity being the center of the universe.
What I do have is a highly tuned bullshit detector. I can tell almost intantly when people are misguided or lying. For example, when I saw Bush give his speech before the Iraq invasion and heard him say the infamous sixteen words (especially the "from Africa" emphasis), I knew he was lying. Or when I read Mr. Mopar's earlier comments about embryionic stem cells being equal to a human babies, I detected the Christianist agenda right away.
Anyway, like I said, I am not the best spokesman for atheism, but I am learning new things every day. Before joining UTI two months ago, I would have described myself as an apathetic atheist. I was non-confrontational and I regret that. Now, I would consider myself an activist atheist. I love the free thinking atmosphere and the exchange of ideas. I even learned a few things on this thread.
Brent gave me something to think about by bringing up the Courtier's Reply. I had never heard that term before, but it was like a lightbulb going off in my head when he said it. Joe the theologian brought up a quote from Thomas Aquinas. At first, I was wondering what the hell a medeival theologian has to do with anything today. After a while, I realized he considers Aquinas an authority figure, the way I would consider Darwin, or Galileo, or Einstein an authority figure. I even thought up a new term for the god logic these clowns use: theologic. Theologic is what Joe the theologian used when he said "Actually, the onus IS on you. There simply is inadequate evidence that there is no Creator". The arguement doesn't make sense and is just plain silly. No, it is not up to me to prove your fairy tales don't exist. However, if you have god on the brain, it probably does make sense in some sort of circular or twisted logic way.
In conclusion, I must thank Joe the theologian and Mr. Mopar for helping me(unwittingly) to understand the mind of the theist a little bit better.
P.S.
Can't wait to hear about your weekend. Glad you're back.