(November 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm)mayor of simpleton Wrote: A counter argument is not necessary nor appropriate, as an expression of faith is not an argument. It is a statement.

Now if the reasoning as to why someone believes in theistic religion and an argument is put forth in terms of suppot via empirical evidences as premises, well then.... this is fair game.

Well, it's more the predicable effect of dangerous beliefs that mostly concerns me. This is why I spend a lot of time on Islamo-Christianity and not, say on Wicca, Buddhism or other relatively harmless religions. The question I usually ask when someone tells me what they believe isn't the evidence they have (although this might be question #2). My first question is "if you really believe that, what behavior can I expect from you?"

As Sam Harris has noted, belief represents potential action. If you really think there is a devil that opposes your god, it doesn't lend itself to tolerance for other religions that serve other gods. Since the only other power, by the light of your belief, is the devil, that rather narrows it down which power you're serving.

Islamo-Christian ideology is a religion that can't, by its nature, live and let live. The belief in Hell, combined with a faith-based scheme of salvation, ratchets the stakes so high as to justify any acts of murder or cruelty to save as many souls as possible.

Quote:Deism is another kettle of fish... a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste. The application of Occam's Razor tends to render the god/deity assumption redundant, but if the foundation here again is faith, then we are not speaking empirically, but rather intuitively.

I'm not big fan of getting into debates on the hair splitting between atheism, deism, pantheism, agnosticism, etc. Once we've agreed that the universe is a natural place governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason, the rest is abstract philosophy that has little impact on how we live our lives. We're I to switch to atheism tomorrow, nothing of significance about me or the way I live would change. I suspect the same would be true of any atheist shifting to deism.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm content to admit that my reasons for being a deist are instinctive, based on the sense of wonder I have of the natural universe, the potential of the human mind and my enduring hope of the human prospect (despite the rank stupidity I've witnessed over the last decade). None of these preclude atheism but I have a need to say "God" and attributing some conscious intent that the atheist doesn't have.

As an added bonus, I get to identify with great thinkers from history who had fantastic hair. I have this unexplained sentimental attachment to the 18th century.

That same intellectual honest prevents me from adopting the label "atheist" because on that deep level, for whatever reason, I am unshakably convinced.

Quote:Though I am indeed a gnostic atheist (theism) and an ignostic atheist (deism) I cannot really get behind bashing and insulting to make a point.

Bullying was the bargining tool of many a theist who sat upon the throne of power for many a century. I do not wish to lower my principles to the level of these abuses. Sure jokes and jabbs can be made, but this is to keep the situation from getting out of hand.

I try to keep in mind that neither I nor any other freethinker is smarter than any theist. Given the right upbringing or indoctrination, it could just as easily be me rolling around on the floor of a Pentecostal Church imagining that I'm speaking in tongues. I'm not smarter. I'm luckier. Our purpose should be to free the minds of those enslaved by a terrifying and dis-empowering belief system.

DP, smarter or luckier remains a question, as someone had to see the drivel for what it was, despite upbringing and environment, and someone had to step out of the crazy box to have a cig, thinking, "WTF?" Though it may have been some sort of chance informing either cause at the moment of the effect, I doubt luck had anything to do with the truth of the matter.

(November 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, it's more the predicable effect of dangerous beliefs that mostly concerns me. This is why I spend a lot of time on Islamo-Christianity and not, say on Wicca, Buddhism or other relatively harmless religions. The question I usually ask when someone tells me what they believe isn't the evidence they have (although this might be question #2). My first question is "if you really believe that, what behavior can I expect from you?"

This is more or less my opinion as well. The potential dangers of such beliefs tend to send up a red flag for me. If there are people out there who are really in "need" of such a system of belief, this is all fine and good with me, but if they step over the bounds and wish to make a dictation of what the pursuit of happiness is or to apply this "god/deity whatever" as a trump card to excuse empirical investigation or better said censur them I really have an issue with this.

There are many out there who are not able to live without such a clandestine social order. They just are not ready to let go. Forcing them to do so could very well cause them to fall into such peril of "crisis of existence" that is would be ill advices to force them to do so. Their process of accumulcation and adaptation has just not quite (yet) crossed this bridge. Forcing such "evolutionray changes" may indeed be as false as the beliefs that they tend to propagate.

We could apply such clandestine behaviours to other things in life. The "anti-Globalization", "Occupy Wall Street", "anti-Global Warming" all share a lot of common ground with various theistic religions. The dogma, non sequiturs premises, hasty generalizations of validity, pseudo sciences and "act of centering the being" (aka reigious faith) are often present in all of these movements. Often these groups, just a theistic religions, tend to start with a central answer and then form and manipulate all pending questions to suit the answer assumed to be "absolute and universal" from the git go.

I tend to target various epistemolgies, not because I do not agree with the arguments possible validity, but rather I wish to expose them for what they are really worth in terms of soundness. For the most part, I choose words a bit less cryptic, as not everyone can use words like "epistemology" in a sentence.

DeistPaladin Wrote:I'm not big fan of getting into debates on the hair splitting between atheism, deism, pantheism, agnosticism, etc. Once we've agreed that the universe is a natural place governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason, the rest is abstract philosophy that has little impact on how we live our lives. We're I to switch to atheism tomorrow, nothing of significance about me or the way I live would change. I suspect the same would be true of any atheist shifting to deism.

I only deal with this kettle of fish only if someone really wishes to dive in.

My central issue of concern is with the theistic religious systems of the world. They tend to be very frightful at times. At the moment, the best defence they seem to offer up now a days is a combinations of "Bullies and Bombs"...

If a theist says that they believe in what they believe via "religious faith" and they in turn respect the right of others to have a differing perspective, I can deal with that. Problem is that the seats of power within theistic religions tend not to respect others. My hope is that those having the courage in a "theistic world" to open their opinions regarding a rejection of these views can do so without lowering to the levels of the "Bullies". I don't even wish to think about the "Bombs"...

DeistPaladin Wrote:For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm content to admit that my reasons for being a deist are instinctive, based on the sense of wonder I have of the natural universe, the potential of the human mind and my enduring hope of the human prospect (despite the rank stupidity I've witnessed over the last decade). None of these preclude atheism but I have a need to say "God" and attributing some conscious intent that the atheist doesn't have.

As an added bonus, I get to identify with great thinkers from history who had fantastic hair. I have this unexplained sentimental attachment to the 18th century.

That same intellectual honest prevents me from adopting the label "atheist" because on that deep level, for whatever reason, I am unshakably convinced.

Well, first of all I can respect that position. You have very "good" reasons to have the opinion that you have. What "good" would arise out of changing this perspective?

It's your experience and your life.

My experience and my life would not allow me to have this position, but this does not mean that I do not have an appreciation for metaphors or similies. My rejection of the position is easy for me to articulate, but lets be honest here... does my opinion here really matter all that much too you? Should it? I'd say... probably not.

I find that refreshing. We are more than likely capable of having a dialogue, rather than the exchange of monologue platitudes...

DeistPaladin Wrote:I try to keep in mind that neither I nor any other freethinker is smarter than any theist. Given the right upbringing or indoctrination, it could just as easily be me rolling around on the floor of a Pentecostal Church imagining that I'm speaking in tongues. I'm not smarter. I'm luckier. Our purpose should be to free the minds of those enslaved by a terrifying and dis-empowering belief system.

Quite true...

In fact, I tend to stay clear of refering to my person as being a "freethinker". Such "bandwagons" are a breeding ground for many a hasty generalization. I find it quite funny how very many "freethinkers who make claim to be "followers of Darwin; thus atheist" actuall believe in the concept of Free Will, whie at the same time confusing Fatalism with Determinism... not realizing that "Free Will" would defeat the vast majority of Darwin's Accumulation/Adaptation. This might step on a few toes, but I find there are indeed a few (NOT ALL) self-declared "atheists" who actually have created an "anti-god" and have all the tendencies of worship, dogma and faith that their enemy has.

I suppose this is what you can expect when people confuse correalation with causality. Such errors are not exclusive to theists, but are common in all of humanity.

Being an atheist is only an answer to a single question and not an indication of IQ. Sure there are stats to make claim of the "higher IQ" of atheists, but the difference is not significate enough to amout too much. Various forms of penis envy are all too human, I suppose.

Cheers!

Meow!

GREG

---

(November 14, 2011 at 9:41 am)Epimethean Wrote: DP, smarter or luckier remains a question, as someone had to see the drivel for what it was, despite upbringing and environment, and someone had to step out of the crazy box to have a cig, thinking, "WTF?" Though it may have been some sort of chance informing either cause at the moment of the effect, I doubt luck had anything to do with the truth of the matter.

How did that old saying go?

"It's smarter to be lucky than it's luck to be smart".

I don't buy into that very much either, but then again... I don't believe in luck.

Meow!

GREG

Quote:The potential dangers of such beliefs tend to send up a red flag for me.

Why is it a potential danger? If the belief system poses a danger to life or liberty, I will agree with you. However the Christian faith as reflected in the Bible states just the opposite. If differences of "opinion" is not tolerated, then that becomes a problem.

Quote:If there are people out there who are really in "need" of such a system of belief, this is all fine and good with me, but if they step over the bounds and wish to make a dictation of what the pursuit of happiness is or to apply this "god/deity whatever" as a trump card to excuse empirical investigation or better said censur them I really have an issue with this.

To the contrary, empirical investigation is strongly encouraged in the Christian faith.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Quote:Our purpose should be to free the minds of those enslaved by a terrifying and dis-empowering belief system

Please explain "enslaved" , "terrifying", "dis-empowering" with reference to the Christian faith.
I am presently reading a book by Martyn Lloyd-Jones and he he points out that calling on religious leaders to assist with the moral decline in society, and expect that (from a Christian perspective) one should put forward "live like this", as reflecting the message of Christianity for a better society, would be missing the point altogether. None of us even live up to our own standards. The problem is the fallen nature of man, and not that we do not know how to "behave". He puts is like this " If Christianity is but a moral ethical teaching, it is as useless as all the others" and further "I answer that what is needed is not what I think about sex , but a power that will deliver a man from being mastered and controlled by it"
Thus Christianity is not about conduct (although that will follow, or aught to follow), but is about receiving a new heart through re-birth. A heart that is not controlled by the "lusts of the flesh" but by the Spirit of God. We are all slaves - either to the flesh, or to God.
Considering the point Our purpose indicates that you have an agenda as well of convincing people that your way is the "one", not so? So you would teach others (I suppose even your children if you have any) of the views you consider to be the correct ones to hold. To leave it to them would be irresponsible, would it not?

(October 18, 2011 at 2:42 pm)Carnavon Wrote: Faith means nothing and evidence is all that counts? On what evidence do you claim that first life started from non-living matter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADMMmU6a...re=related

Quote:Christianity did not start with the new testament. Followers of Jesus Christ were first called Christians in Antioch, but if you read the Bible, it starts with the very first two people on earth. Christians do not ignore the Old Testament. To the contrary, much of what is in the new testament refers to the Old Testament.

Evolution is a fact. Get over it and be proud to be an African ape. Our species overcame too much struggle to be here today for you to dismiss it with some silly story. The entire bible is wretched, but the OT- it's just heinous.

Quote:What is a false prophet?

Jesus, according to the Jews.

What evidence do you have they're wrong?

(November 18, 2011 at 10:16 am)Carnavon Wrote: Why is it a potential danger?

I thought that was clear but let me go into more detail:

Danger #1. Islamo-Christianity proposes not only that there is a god but that this god is opposed by a devil. The universe is a battle ground between these two opposing sides.

There are only two sides in this "spiritual struggle". There is no "Bob, the Neutral Christ" in either religion. Additionally, the side that serves the good god is well defined in the mind of the fundamentalist. It's always the side of your own religion, of course. After all, Islamo-Christianity is all about "serving God", however their individual sect and denomination may define God.

If they encounter a religion, belief, lifestyle, game or whatever is outside their idea of serving God, it rather narrows it down who these outsiders are serving, doesn't it? It's called process of elimination.

Giving the logic a rundown:
1. Presupposition: Total Powers of the Universe = God and Satan
2. Presupposition: "My religion = serving God"
3. Observation: Group outside my religion
4. Definition: "Not my religion = Not serving God"
5. Process of elimination: "Not serving God = Serving Satan"
6. Conclusion: "Outside group = manipulated by Satan or serving him"

Many Islamo-Christians might not want to take the "reasoning" that far but I hope this breakdown explains why the more extreme fundamentalists cry "Satanism" or "evil" when exposed to a religion, lifestyle, etc. that doesn't fit their narrow views of what is righteous.

Such a worldview doesn't lend itself to tolerance of other religions, apostasy or other outsiders. Further, the conviction of being in the service of God can whitewash any bad behavior. After all, what promotes your religion is promoting the service of God and therefore how could that ever be a bad thing?

Danger #2: Islamo-Christianity proposes that there are two afterlife possibilities: eternal Heaven and eternal Hell. Again, there is no middle-ground.

Exact prescriptions for salvation vary according to denomination but being part of the right religion (and sometimes the right denomination) are typically at least part of the deal if not fully. This "faith-based" scheme of salvation ratchets the stakes to alarming levels.

In fact, if Hell really is a real place where you really do go to be eternally tormented if you have not received Jesus, the stakes could not be higher, not just for you but for all your loved ones.

Given this belief, how could a little torture be a bad thing. If torturing someone in this life leads them to salvation for eternity, isn't that a good thing? If burning an unrepentant heretic at the stake can silence criticism of holy doctrine and therefore save more souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing?

If your child, if you have one, were about to be thrown into a lake of fire, wouldn't you use lethal force, if needed, to stop your child's assailant? How about an atheist who speaks out against your religion and therefore endangers all who heed him to Hell, including potentially your children and other loved ones?

Again, most Muslims and Christians won't take it that far but it's easy to see why a few would. Bloody crusades, jihads, inquisitions, pogroms, etc are not an aberration from Islamo-Christian doctrine but rather the very flowering of these faiths.

"Moderate" Islamo-Christian sects are simply watered down versions where old doctrines are diluted with modern learning and sensibility. While they are preferable to the fundamentalist strains, they are also offering cover to a more malevolent ideology.

Again to break it down:

Moderate Christian: (holding a Bible) "This is God's Word..."
Fundy Christian: "...right, and this is what it says..."

Clear?

Quote:If the belief system poses a danger to life or liberty, I will agree with you.

How can Islamo-Christianity value liberty? How can you give freedom to those who serve the devil? How can you tolerate their liberty to do so? What is the value of their life verses saving more souls for all eternity, souls which the unrepentant heathen might take with him to Hell.

Quote:However the Christian faith as reflected in the Bible states just the opposite.

Romans 13:1-2, just to cite one contra-example. There are plenty more but that's a good start.

Quote:To the contrary, empirical investigation is strongly encouraged in the Christian faith.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

That verse doesn't suggest free thought, critical examination or rational inquiry at all. Grasping at straws much?

Quote:Please explain "enslaved" , "terrifying", "dis-empowering" with reference to the Christian faith.

If Hell isn't terrifying I don't know what is.

If questioning dogma or apostasy are a ticket to Hell, how is that not slavery?

If one is encouraged to pray instead of doing it yourself, this is not empowering.

Quote:assist with the moral decline in society,

There is no moral decline. Quite to the contrary. Evils once tolerated, like slavery, war crimes, tyrannical leaders, etc. are now reviled. Even in the last generation, with the end of segregation to greater awareness of human rights, we can see that humans are morally progressing.

This moral progress, like our progress in science and reason, was often made by dragging Islamo-Christianity kicking and screaming the whole way.

Quote:We are all slaves - either to the flesh [My interjection: In other words, the devil, right?], or to God.

Thank you for underscoring problem #1 above.

Quote:Considering the point Our purpose indicates that you have an agenda as well of convincing people that your way is the "one", not so?

As my post already stated, it's not telling others what to think but encouraging others to have the bravery and freedom to think at all.

"To the contrary, empirical investigation is strongly encouraged in the Christian faith.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

So long as all thy mind is certain that there is no truth to be found outside scripture, maybe. What rubbish. Shall we just say, "Bruno, you know?"

My new religion is called Ohshitism. The deity is a self-absorbed housewife on her period. When you die, it is vital that your loved ones bury you with chocolate and midol for to please Her Mighty Bitchiness. She doesn't give a fuck what you do when you're alive, you'd better bring chocolate when your life is over and you must face her, lest she eats your face off every day for eternity.

(November 18, 2011 at 10:42 am)aleialoura Wrote: Evolution is a fact. Get over it and be proud to be an African ape.

I am sure that you can prove that?

---

(November 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "To the contrary, empirical investigation is strongly encouraged in the Christian faith.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

So long as all thy mind is certain that there is no truth to be found outside scripture, maybe. What rubbish. Shall we just say, "Bruno, you know?"

The implication is that Christians are not expected to believe things which contradicts fact and turn a blind eye to it just because the Bible "says so". Maybe you can indicate what is it Christians believe that is contrary to established and verified fact?

(November 19, 2011 at 2:23 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(November 18, 2011 at 10:42 am)aleialoura Wrote: Evolution is a fact. Get over it and be proud to be an African ape.

I am sure that you can prove that?

How can you prove apart from the bible that we all descended from a guy created from dirt and a woman who was formed out of the rib of guy.