Atheism

[Sam]

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

Science has never been the realm of Christianity, nor Judaism, nor any of the major religions IIRC. You're chasing your own tail with that one.

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

You see there have been many, many times when a new scientific discovery is made and the church eventually accepts it, surely if you are right in your assertion that 'Science has never been the realm ...' they should have just shrugged it of as unimportant?

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence.

Then you fail to address my belief at all.

How can I fail to address your belief when I am yet to hear exactly what it is ... or see this reasoning for myself. Maybe rather than fobbing me off with such BS you could actually share your ideas in your own words, much as I am doing now?

Let me know if thats too much to ask though

Example #1

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accommodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

You're unfamiliar with Augustine then? What I address is reasoning as presented in scripture and other sources.

Funnily enough I am unfamiliar with Augustine, perhaps again you could just explain how you see your beliefs and we can go from there?

You know for someone who, earlier in this thread was demanding 'one tangible example etc...' you seem unwilling to provide specifics yourself. It seems a little disingenous to me.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

As you are supposedly attacking my "God hypothesis" I would expect you to be familiar with what is globally accepted definition. Try this

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just voicing my opinions in reasonable debate. And I am fairly familiar with most definitions, I'm just trying to pin down yours so I know where I stand!

It is ad homien to try and lend credance to your definition by saying it is globally accepted without any evidence, alll you quote is one website. Do you have a statistical survey to show that a majority of Christians around the world accept the definition you are providing?

From reading the page you posted I fail to see how these triats are 'reasoned neccesity' the term that came to mind was more 'convienient idea'. I think that after reading this, our little debate here may not ever get resolved, you are willing to accept what I see a fallacious reasoning and I am only willing to accept something more tangible or at least supported by some form of observation. I don't think my requirement is unreasonable because we hold absolutely everything else to that standard ... Why should 'God' be arbitrarily defined outside of that scope?

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry, becuase I have given one IDEA of what might constitute proof you are noe demanding that I (A 2nd Year Earth & Environmental Science Student) would go about analysisng a hugely complex event and then how if all investigations failed would atribute it to God?

And you said asking for evidence of God was absurd?

I would assume, that such an event would have to be analysed in terms of the currently accepted rules of nature, if these where found to be wanting a new theory would have to explain the event pls everything that went before it ... if that was not possible then it could be attributed to something outside of nature i.e. God.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept your idea of a being who is arbitrarily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal; omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

You continue to present the straw man that is not the Christian God. You seem to have little to know conception of the Christian God, so your rational position is hardly surprising. I haven't claimed that you should be supernaturally informed.

I'm trying to grasp this God concept you keep mentioning but the only posotive reference you have provided is a masterstroke ob abstract reasoning ... I'll have a read through it but so far I fail to see anything that as yet I have not been aware of when reffering to your God. Perhaps you could point out where what I have said above is in contradiction to your Ideas?

You are correct. Just as you, with the dismissal of God have to leave the possibility that you could be wrong, I have to leave open the possibility that I may be wrong in asserting that there can be no acceptable evidence.

If you claim lack of evidence as your reason for disbelief, you have equally to the small possibility of evidence for God, the small possibility of there actually being any acceptable evidence. I don't see how you could make such a claim without having any idea what evidence would be acceptable. Therefore the claim is nullified.

I do accept that I cannot know for definite whether or not there is a God, I like to think my arguments above are set out to try and argue against any particular religion/god hypothesis.

I have already posited one idea f acceptable evdience and have said that given such proof I would accept the existence og God so why is my claim nullified?

Sam

[fr0d0]

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

The two are separate subjects, neither are about the other. They can reference each other withing those boundaries, but not proclaim authority over what isn't their realm.

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

The church has always accepted it. Only modern error has been any different.

You see there have been many, many times when a new scientific discovery is made and the church eventually accepts it, surely if you are right in your assertion that 'Science has never been the realm ...' they should have just shrugged it of as unimportant?

It was never the realm of religion to accept or deny.

How can I fail to address your belief when I am yet to hear exactly what it is ... or see this reasoning for myself. Maybe rather than fobbing me off with such BS you could actually share your ideas in your own words, much as I am doing now?

Let me know if thats too much to ask though

It's you that is jumping in asserting my beliefs. Now suddenly it's me the bad guy for your lack of understanding. Forgive me for your ignorance. I am not your educator by default.

Funnily enough I am unfamiliar with Augustine, perhaps again you could just explain how you see your beliefs and we can go from there?

You know for someone who, earlier in this thread was demanding 'one tangible example etc...' you seem unwilling to provide specifics yourself. It seems a little disingenous to me.

And I should respond to this reversal of the point of this thread why? All I'm here for is to here this concrete reasoning of yours. Nothing more.

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just voicing my opinions in reasonable debate. And I am fairly familiar with most definitions, I'm just trying to pin down yours so I know where I stand!

It is ad homien to try and lend credance to your definition by saying it is globally accepted without any evidence, alll you quote is one website. Do you have a statistical survey to show that a majority of Christians around the world accept the definition you are providing?

From reading the page you posted I fail to see how these triats are 'reasoned neccesity' the term that came to mind was more 'convienient idea'. I think that after reading this, our little debate here may not ever get resolved, you are willing to accept what I see a fallacious reasoning and I am only willing to accept something more tangible or at least supported by some form of observation. I don't think my requirement is unreasonable because we hold absolutely everything else to that standard ... Why should 'God' be arbitrarily defined outside of that scope?

You're moving the goalposts. You asked for an accurate definition of the Christian God, which I provided.

ALL Christians agree on one particular occurrence of the Nicene Creed. All of them. Again, it is you, who declares ignorance, that declares this. You think casual observance takes precedence over fact? How strange.

The basis for all these beliefs is the bible, if you want to go to the source.

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry, becuase I have given one IDEA of what might constitute proof you are noe demanding that I (A 2nd Year Earth & Environmental Science Student) would go about analysisng a hugely complex event and then how if all investigations failed would atribute it to God?

And you said asking for evidence of God was absurd?

I would assume, that such an event would have to be analysed in terms of the currently accepted rules of nature, if these where found to be wanting a new theory would have to explain the event pls everything that went before it ... if that was not possible then it could be attributed to something outside of nature i.e. God.

So all newly discovered facts are in fact proofs of God and not, as we all think, additions to our knowledge of nature. Fantastic. I must tell Kyu!

(I'll carry on later - out of time now)

[fr0d0]

2nd thoughts - there's nothing more I want to say.

[Kyuuketsuki]

2nd thoughts - there's nothing more I want to say.

Colour me shocked!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

2nd thoughts - there's nothing more I want to say.

Colour me shocked!

Glad to see you found your voice again

[Kyuuketsuki]

Colour me shocked!

Glad to see you found your voice again

Nothing wrong with my voice and, since I'm not the one saying I've nothing more I want to say, some might say that that you're a disingenuous little fuck!

Kyu

[Sam]

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

The two are separate subjects, neither are about the other. They can reference each other withing those boundaries, but not proclaim authority over what isn't their realm.

Okay ... so what your saying is that they are seperate, but can comment on each other but, their comments aren't valid?

It would seem that if they are seperate subjects as you claim that they could not reference each with any merit or point at all, needless to say I disagree with that statement.

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

The church has always accepted it. Only modern error has been any different.

I'm sorry, for a second there it looked like you claimed the church has always accepted evoloution. Surely you don't believe that? I think it is reasonably well documented invarious forms of literature that many bishops and cardinals still do not accept it as fact.

How can I fail to address your belief when I am yet to hear exactly what it is ... or see this reasoning for myself. Maybe rather than fobbing me off with such BS you could actually share your ideas in your own words, much as I am doing now?

Let me know if thats too much to ask though

It's you that is jumping in asserting my beliefs. Now suddenly it's me the bad guy for your lack of understanding. Forgive me for your ignorance. I am not your educator by default.

I haven't asserted your belief's, I have made comments based on my experience of the kind of God that other christians have described to me.

How can you possibly say that me requesting a description of your beliefs is ignorance? or a lack of understanding? You have never expressed exactly what they are so I am working with what I have.

I have (and never would) ask you to be my educator Fr0d0 I have merely asked you to clarify your beliefs so I can know exactly where you are arguing from ... as of yet, you have not done so.

Funnily enough I am unfamiliar with Augustine, perhaps again you could just explain how you see your beliefs and we can go from there?

You know for someone who, earlier in this thread was demanding 'one tangible example etc...' you seem unwilling to provide specifics yourself. It seems a little disingenous to me.

And I should respond to this reversal of the point of this thread why? All I'm here for is to here this concrete reasoning of yours. Nothing more.

How have I reversed the thread? By asking for clarification of a point of contension? My sincere apologies if you feel that way ... How silly of me to assume that because you where questioning me I could in turn question you!

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just voicing my opinions in reasonable debate. And I am fairly familiar with most definitions, I'm just trying to pin down yours so I know where I stand!

It is ad homien to try and lend credance to your definition by saying it is globally accepted without any evidence, alll you quote is one website. Do you have a statistical survey to show that a majority of Christians around the world accept the definition you are providing?

From reading the page you posted I fail to see how these triats are 'reasoned neccesity' the term that came to mind was more 'convienient idea'. I think that after reading this, our little debate here may not ever get resolved, you are willing to accept what I see a fallacious reasoning and I am only willing to accept something more tangible or at least supported by some form of observation. I don't think my requirement is unreasonable because we hold absolutely everything else to that standard ... Why should 'God' be arbitrarily defined outside of that scope?

You're moving the goalposts. You asked for an accurate definition of the Christian God, which I provided.

ALL Christians agree on one particular occurrence of the Nicene Creed. All of them. Again, it is you, who declares ignorance, that declares this. You think casual observance takes precedence over fact? How strange.

The basis for all these beliefs is the bible, if you want to go to the source.

*Reads his posts* Hmmmmm ... I don't see where I have ever said that my personal observances are more valid than anything else. I'm merely expressing my views in a polite discussion.

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry, becuase I have given one IDEA of what might constitute proof you are noe demanding that I (A 2nd Year Earth & Environmental Science Student) would go about analysisng a hugely complex event and then how if all investigations failed would atribute it to God?

And you said asking for evidence of God was absurd?

I would assume, that such an event would have to be analysed in terms of the currently accepted rules of nature, if these where found to be wanting a new theory would have to explain the event pls everything that went before it ... if that was not possible then it could be attributed to something outside of nature i.e. God.

So all newly discovered facts are in fact proofs of God and not, as we all think, additions to our knowledge of nature. Fantastic. I must tell Kyu!

(I'll carry on later - out of time now)

And just where is that I said that?

What I said was that a new phonomena would have to be analysed within the currently accepted 'Laws of Nature' if it was found to be outside of these laws, a new theory would need to be generated. This theory would have to account for the New Phonomena whilst also accounting for everything the old Theory did as-well and also stand up to scrutiny.

If it was impossible to reconcile this new phonomena with a theory that also could be applied to the rest of the universe then we could start to consider other possibilities i.e. God

Sam

[fr0d0]

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

The two are separate subjects, neither are about the other. They can reference each other withing those boundaries, but not proclaim authority over what isn't their realm.

Okay ... so what your saying is that they are seperate, but can comment on each other but, their comments aren't valid?

It would seem that if they are seperate subjects as you claim that they could not reference each with any merit or point at all, needless to say I disagree with that statement.

Christianity addresses the human condition, science addresses observable fact and theorises over the physically existent. Show me how either subject has validity with the other. As Dawkins rightly complained, religion had no business in dictating to science. Demonstrably so IMO.

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

The church has always accepted it. Only modern error has been any different.

I'm sorry, for a second there it looked like you claimed the church has always accepted evoloution. Surely you don't believe that? I think it is reasonably well documented invarious forms of literature that many bishops and cardinals still do not accept it as fact.

No. The church's default stance was acceptance. Preceeding ignorant dogma Christianity is pro science. That some members of the church didn't is their error.

I haven't asserted your belief's, I have made comments based on my experience of the kind of God that other christians have described to me.

How can you possibly say that me requesting a description of your beliefs is ignorance? or a lack of understanding? You have never expressed exactly what they are so I am working with what I have.

I have (and never would) ask you to be my educator Fr0d0 I have merely asked you to clarify your beliefs so I can know exactly where you are arguing from ... as of yet, you have not done so.

And what is the point of this detour? Why am I yet again to be diverted by your agenda? Discussions of this nature are completely pointless. You and I have done this before. You want to get to the bottom of something that you vehemently oppose and would not ever consider. I find it hard to motivate myself to such a self destructive end. I simply have no investment in this discussion and will withdraw as it is void of purpose for the reasons stated. Good luck with your search. Sincerely.

What I said was that a new phonomena would have to be analysed within the currently accepted 'Laws of Nature' if it was found to be outside of these laws, a new theory would need to be generated. This theory would have to account for the New Phonomena whilst also accounting for everything the old Theory did as-well and also stand up to scrutiny.

If it was impossible to reconcile this new phonomena with a theory that also could be applied to the rest of the universe then we could start to consider other possibilities i.e. God

I completely disagree. There would never ever enter into any consideration the possibility "God". For one: the definition "God" would have to be satisfied.. so it would break the first rule that God cannot be provable. If anything falls into the natural realm it becomes natural. God being supernatural breaks the theory again. And so you'd go on.

[Sam]

Christianity addresses the human condition, science addresses observable fact and theorises over the physically existent. Show me how either subject has validity with the other. As Dawkins rightly complained, religion had no business in dictating to science. Demonstrably so IMO.

Sorry ... My opinion was that religion should never reference science at all if it claims they are so distinct, as in the religious opinion they have no validity against one another.

No. The church's default stance was acceptance. Preceeding ignorant dogma Christianity is pro science. That some members of the church didn't is their error.

Sine when is the church's default stance acceptance? I seem to remember more than a few christian oppositions to new scientific and social advances e.g. Stem Cell Research, Evoloution, Open Homosexulaity?

So again, please provide an example of when a scientific fact, which directly contradicts the Bible has been immediately and openly accepted by the church. I would think if you actually check back you will see that many new break throughs where condemned by the church en mass not just by a few individuals.

*Thinks about citing the Galileo story*

And what is the point of this detour? Why am I yet again to be diverted by your agenda? Discussions of this nature are completely pointless. You and I have done this before. You want to get to the bottom of something that you vehemently oppose and would not ever consider. I find it hard to motivate myself to such a self destructive end. I simply have no investment in this discussion and will withdraw as it is void of purpose for the reasons stated. Good luck with your search. Sincerely.

Have we done this before? Of cours it suits you to satrt claiming detours and withdraw from the discussion it protects you from having to fairly and reasonably justify your beliefs with something more than faith ... which from your numerous (failed) attempts to prove that faith is the only acceptable basis we know you simply cannot do.

Since when have I said I vehemently oppose anything, I consider everything in a spirit of reasonable enquiry. I only oppose it if I find it wanting in several key areas. You just assume that I wouldn't consider it to justify your premature withdrawl from the discussion.

I completely disagree. There would never ever enter into any consideration the possibility "God". For one: the definition "God" would have to be satisfied.. so it would break the first rule that God cannot be provable. If anything falls into the natural realm it becomes natural. God being supernatural breaks the theory again. And so you'd go on.

Maybe they wouldn't be able to say that 'Yes that phonomena was caused by God' but something more like 'that phonomena was caused by something outside of the natural universe' which by definition means they accept that something could exist outside of our natural universe and therefore allow the provable possibility of God.

So you see your definition of God as the only supernatural agent at work would mean that all the scientist would have to do is prove the existnce of a supernatural realm. Again you have closed your mind and dismissed by idea to suit your own ends.

Sam

[fr0d0]

Christianity addresses the human condition, science addresses observable fact and theorises over the physically existent. Show me how either subject has validity with the other. As Dawkins rightly complained, religion had no business in dictating to science. Demonstrably so IMO.

Sorry ... My opinion was that religion should never reference science at all if it claims they are so distinct, as in the religious opinion they have no validity against one another.

So you agree with me? This isn't clear.

Sine when is the church's default stance acceptance? I seem to remember more than a few christian oppositions to new scientific and social advances e.g. Stem Cell Research, Evoloution, Open Homosexulaity?

So again, please provide an example of when a scientific fact, which directly contradicts the Bible has been immediately and openly accepted by the church. I would think if you actually check back you will see that many new break throughs where condemned by the church en mass not just by a few individuals.

*Thinks about citing the Galileo story*

Stem cell research is a moral question, which is in the religious realm. Homosexuality possibly. Evolution not. So your premise is askew.

Then you are combining stances of certain bodies within the church - the Catholic Church is very large but en masse unrepresentative and controlled by a relatively small minority making proclamations for very many - with orthodox Christian belief. Orthodox belief doesn't change, and it's stance is consistent.

I can quote very many non Christian acts committed by people identifying themselves as Christian. I identify my self as Christian yet most of the time I'm not acting in accordance with my belief. The aim is still perfect, if the execution is misguided.

Have we done this before? Of cours it suits you to satrt claiming detours and withdraw from the discussion it protects you from having to fairly and reasonably justify your beliefs with something more than faith ... which from your numerous (failed) attempts to prove that faith is the only acceptable basis we know you simply cannot do.

Since when have I said I vehemently oppose anything, I consider everything in a spirit of reasonable enquiry. I only oppose it if I find it wanting in several key areas. You just assume that I wouldn't consider it to justify your premature withdrawl from the discussion.

You have a short memory. You appear from no-where and appear to single me out. I'm flattered whilst at the same time bored.

I apologise for my unwillingness to confront. My rationality tells me this is fruitless. If you appeared genuine to me then I would be more than happy to oblige. You have yet to convince me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they wouldn't be able to say that 'Yes that phonomena was caused by God' but something more like 'that phonomena was caused by something outside of the natural universe' which by definition means they accept that something could exist outside of our natural universe and therefore allow the provable possibility of God.

So you see your definition of God as the only supernatural agent at work would mean that all the scientist would have to do is prove the existnce of a supernatural realm. Again you have closed your mind and dismissed by idea to suit your own ends.

Outside the natural universe would not be God. How am I dismissing the idea with these rational rebuts??