Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because.  Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

Hey hey now, no one said it isn't predicate on anything, but there's no requirement that said atheist know what that "thing" is - or even that there be a "thing" to begin with.  As a child, I hadn't yet poured over the worlds various god claims.  I hadn't scrutinized apologetic arguments.  I didn't believe,.....why?  Because I didn't believe, plain and simple eh?   Still don't.  Of course, we might like to think that it's a brilliant argument that led us to whatever position we hold on the subject...but chances are it isn't (regardless of which side of the issue we're on). I've never been presented with anything which challenges that same no I would have offered you when I was 5 or 6, so I couldn't tell you, with a straight face, that reason (for example) is -why- I don't believe, even though I do feel that my position is reasonable. I could say "because", or I could give you a laundry list of reasons, both would be true, now - but it hasn't always been so and there's no requirement that people have any reason whatsoever. Nor, obviously, is anyone required to have a reason for their belief in god - whatever additional requirements they have for their own belief are their own business.  If they want to have a rational belief, then they've decided to subject the justifications for their belief to those requirements - even though the status of their belief in and of itself has no such responsibility..basically, we're dealing with two separate questions.

Do you believe in gods?
No - atheism

Why don't you believe in gods?
-insert things here- not atheism.....

I'm not sure why you're having trouble? 

[nihilistcat]

Okay, I don't have time for long silly discussions with religious nut jobs (I have limited patience for retarded) .... so here's my short reply. 

What is it with religious wack jobs ... always like to play philosopher and talk about logical fallacies (don't quit your day job, janitor, waitress, whatever it may be). 

History doesn't support the education/religion thing. Hmmm, duh (try actually reading history instead of your buy-bull or the stupid crap that perverted freak you call a priest tells you). 

I think I know the problem, catholicism is full of fucktards like Aquinas (who could write about absurd shit like the magic wafer for hundreds of pages). 

Anyway, enjoy your wafers (and explain to me again how it turns to jesus on the way down your esophagus)

[Angrboda]

I think we are all biased. Bias tends to ensure that, once we are headed toward one conclusion, we will keep going in the direction of that conclusion. That's what bias is, viewing the evidence with a preference for one direction over another. Thus the atheist reinforces her disbelief while the theist reinforces her belief. Neither can clearly see the reasons of either side because of the working of that bias.

I became an atheist largely because I recognized that I was using reason inconsistently in support of my beliefs. Now, having embraced atheism, I'm greeted with a host of ostensible 'reasons' for maintaining my disbelief. Standard arguments, about the incompatibility of various religious beliefs, their geographic dispersion, objections to various theist arguments, and so forth. To say that I disbelieve due to a lack of evidence would, I think be in error. I disbelieve, and then I have reasons which reinforce my disbelief. Just as a theist believes, and then has reasons for that belief.

In short, I recognize that part of my disbelief is bound up in bias against belief, which leads me to certain reasons, whereas a theist in their bias to believe is bound up in bias to believe. I don't know what I'm trying to say, other than that I acknowledge I have a bias against theist beliefs.

[Anima]

Okay, I don't have time for long silly discussions with religious nut jobs (I have limited patience for retarded) .... so here's my short reply. 

What is it with religious wack jobs ... always like to play philosopher and talk about logical fallacies (don't quit your day job, janitor, waitress, whatever it may be). 

History doesn't support the education/religion thing. Hmmm, duh (try actually reading history instead of your buy-bull or the stupid crap that perverted freak you call a priest tells you). 

I think I know the problem, catholicism is full of fucktards like Aquinas (who could write about absurd shit like the magic wafer for hundreds of pages). 

Anyway, enjoy your wafers (and explain to me again how it turns to jesus on the way down your esophagus)

Ha ha. As it is biology is also filled with those same religionous fucktards. Feel free to read up on the history of medicine and biology. You are going to find more priests in that field than just about any other (which is saying something as priest are prevalent in every field of science).

Thankfully my day job pays 20 times what a janitor or waitress make. Playing philosopher pays well especially if you can play with numbers and money

Don't be ridiculous. They are turned into Jesus before they head down our esophagus

Try reading history hmm... Well here is a list of books I read on the subject I hope 30 is enough:

· How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, byThomas E. Woods
· History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium Hardcover. 2011. by James Hitchcoc
· Seven Lies About Catholic History: Infamous Myths about the Church's Past and How to Answer Them. 2010. by Diane Mocza
· Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth. 2007. by Richard John Neuhaus
· Between Science and Religion: The Engagement of Catholic Intellectuals with Science and Technology in the Twentieth... 2009. by Phillip M. Thompson
· Five Anti-Catholic Myths: Slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, Holocaust. 2015. by Gerard M. Verschuuren
· Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. 2013. Michael Behe and William Dembski
· How Science Enriches Theology. 2012. Benedict M. Ashley O.P. and John Deely
· The Savior of Science Kindle Edition. Stanley L. Jaki
· Science Was Born of Christianity: The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki. 2013. Stacy Trasancos and Paul Haffner
· Science 1 for Young Catholics. 2000. Seton Staff
· Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902 (Medicine, Science, and Religion in Historical... 2006. Mariano Artigas
· Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist. 2000. Guy Consolmagno
· The Catholic Church & Science: Answering the Questions, Exposing the Myths. 2011. Dr. Benjamin Wiker Ph.D.
· By Thomas Cahill - Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic... 2006. Thomas Cahill
· Catholic Churchmen in Science: Sketches of the Lives of Catholic Ecclesiastics Who Were Among the Great Founders... 2007. James J. Walsh
· Twelve Catholic Men of Science. 2012. Bertram Coghill Alan Windle
· The Church Under Attack. Diane Moczar
· Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem. 2004.Stanley L. Jaki
· Catholicism and Science (Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion) Peter M.J Hess
· The Science of the Sacraments. Charles Webster Leadbeater
· The 7-Step Reason to be Catholic, 2nd Ed.; Science, the Bible and History point to Catholicism. Jerome D. Gilmartin
· For Notre Dame: Battling for the Heart and Soul of a Catholic University. 2013. Wilson D. Miscamble C.S.C. (Author), David Solomon (Introduction)
· Vatican Diplomacy at the United Nations: A History of Catholic Global Engagement Hardcover . 2009. Dr. Roman A. Melnyk
· The Compact History of the Catholic Church: Revised Edition. 2009. Alan Schreck Ph.D
· The Fathers Know Best. 2010. Jimmy Akin
· Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words. 2002. Rod Bennett
· Anthology of Papers of the Catholic Academy of Sciences in the USA. 2010. Lee T. Grady
· Catholic Churchmen in Science. 2011. James J. (James Joseph) Walsh
· Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy (2-Volume Set). 2007. Michael L. Coulter and Stephen M. Krason
· Mysteries of the Middle Ages: And the Beginning of the Modern World (Hinges of History Book 5). 2010. Thomas Cahill

I know it is not anecdotal evidence or my honest opinion, but I hope it is sufficient to give some justification to statements that history does not support your religion is anti-education claim.

[Cyberman]

That priests advanced our knowledge in scientific fields is actually irrelevant. A person engaging in the scientific method is, or should be, approaching it with a view to following the evidence where it leads, regardless of their background. Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who originated the Big Bang theory, but that was a result of his scientific work and not from reading his bible. Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist as well as a physicist, yet all his work in the field of alchemy combined is nothing compared to his discoveries in physics. Will Hay, one of the greatest comic actors this nation ever produced, was also a highly respected amateur astronomer who contributed many discoveries (astronomy being perhaps the sole scientific discipline in which the amateur still plays a major part). His observation of what became known as Hay's Spot on Saturn, for example, had nothing to do with comedy.

So please stow the red herring.

[Anima]

That priests advanced our knowledge in scientific fields is actually irrelevant. A person engaging in the scientific method is, or should be, approaching it with a view to following the evidence where it leads, regardless of their background. Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who originated the Big Bang theory, but that was a result of his scientific work and not from reading his bible. Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist as well as a physicist, yet all his work in the field of alchemy combined is nothing compared to his discoveries in physics. Will Hay, one of the greatest comic actors this nation ever produced, was also a highly respected amateur astronomer who contributed many discoveries (astronomy being perhaps the sole scientific discipline in which the amateur still plays a major part). His observation of what became known as Hay's Spot on Saturn, for example, had nothing to do with comedy.

So please stow the red herring.

A result of his scientific work no doubt and we will claim his religious views had no impact. On the guy who came up with the theory that states in the beginning there was one thing for an immeasurable amount of time. And then one day that one thing became everything for no reason whatsoever. Yeah... That does not sound religious at all...

How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

I can show that there are 1.3 billion Catholics, 1.7 Billion Muslims and a total of about 7 Billion people on earth. Thus, about 43% of the worlds population is accounted for by these two religions.

I can show that these two religions were effectively the only advocates, facilitators, financiers, and source of education, scientific, cultural, and political discovery for much of the common era (that is to say until about the 20th century) in monastaries, madrassas, and religious universities.

I can show that most of the scientific discoveries of the common era were done or based off of the work performed by religious clerics who were educated by their faiths in numerous subjects. As the views has been for centuries that God is truth, truth supports truth, and one might come to know god better by understanding his creation.

But, because various people on this forum have anecdotal evidence of ignorant religious people (most of whom I suspect would be evangelical, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT A MONOLITH!! ) they would like to say that religion as a whole keeps people ignorant.

So be it, but by that same argument the great majority of anecdotal evidence I have of atheistic people (who are not a monolith) is that atheism deprives them of a full set of consideration and understanding that science, culture, art, politics, and yes even reality demand from them. I see atheist contorting themselves to hold their views far more than I see theists. I see the view of atheists ignore more evidence with the "prove it" requirement than I see theist with the "I do not believe it" statement (I also have it on good authority from Robovalue that they had no choice in believing it or not). So might I say atheism keeps people ignorant?

[Chas]

No, we don't.  We use the modern scientific method which is the result of not just Aristotle's thinking, but includes the contributions of others.

You are correct sir!!!  Enjoy the following list:

The Clerics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

The Catholics, but not necessarily clerics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists

And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

So that is pretty much non-responsive as it is selective sampling.

---

That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

My response was to chas statement about holding onto old theories.  I am not saying they carry more wisdom by virtue of them being old.  I am saying he is not justified in saying a theory carries more wisdom by virtue of it being newer any more than I would be justified in saying by virtue of it being old.

Which, had you read my response with understanding, was not what I said.

Aristotle's (or Aquinas's or Darwin's or anyone's) ideas do not take into account later ideas. They must always be evaluated in light of newer knowledge.

---

A very understandable and laudable ambition. I'm just left wondering why you chose a word which didn't convey a meaning suhhested by the context.

Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

---

Once again.  If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because.  So the common answer has been "lack of proof".  To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof.  To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof.  Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.

No. You keep making this error. It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.

There is no evidence of any gods.

---

That -is- all that people are expressing to you, when they tell you that atheism is a only a no answer regarding their status of belief in gods (not whatever other things you might be tempted to attach..like "darwinism" or "scientism" or even skepticism......)  It's useful to remind people of this, because we see no end of statement such as:

"Atheism can't be true, because I've never found a crocoduck in my peanut butter jar!"
-not atheism (just in case you were wondering)

As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because.  Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

You misunderstand (willfully?) his response. The lack of belief is because of the lack of evidence.

---

How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

By suppressing knowledge and education.

I can show that there are 1.3 billion Catholics, 1.7 Billion Muslims and a total of about 7 Billion people on earth.  Thus, about 43% of the worlds population is accounted for by these two religions.

I can show that these two religions were effectively the only advocates, facilitators, financiers, and source of education, scientific, cultural, and political discovery for much of the common era (that is to say until about the 20th century) in monastaries, madrassas, and religious universities.

That was once true of the Catholic Church when it had political power. It no longer does and is no longer a major factor in science or education.

Islam was an educational power until it turned inward and fundamentalist. It no longer educates, it only suppresses.

I can show that most of the scientific discoveries of the common era were done or based off of the work performed by religious clerics who were educated by their faiths in numerous subjects.  As the views has been for centuries that  God is truth, truth supports truth, and one might come to know god better by understanding his creation.

The Catholic Church had the power, the wealth, and the purpose to educate priests and princes. It did not extend this to everyone.

They were pretty much the only game in town, so your argument lacks any persuasiveness.

But, because various people on this forum have anecdotal evidence of ignorant religious people (most of whom I suspect would be evangelical, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT A MONOLITH!! ) they would like to say that religion as a whole keeps people ignorant.

So be it, but by that same argument the great majority of anecdotal evidence I have of atheistic people (who are not a monolith) is that atheism deprives them of a full set of consideration and understanding that science, culture, art, politics, and yes even reality demand from them.  I see atheist contorting themselves to hold their views far more than I see theists.  I see the view of atheists ignore more evidence with the "prove it" requirement than I see theist with the "I do not believe it" statement (I also have it on good authority from Robovalue that they had no choice in believing it or not).  So might I say atheism keeps people ignorant?

You keep making this mistake. I only ask for evidence. I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.

[Anima]

First of all, not believing in god is not necessarily an intention. I never have believed in god, at least not that I can remember.  What I do remember is sitting in church during a sermon based on Cain and Abel, and thinking "why do grown-ups believe this?"

And others do not ever remember not believing in god. What they remember is sitting in church during a sermon thinking, "there is no way people do not believe this."

I don't go around subjecting all possible beliefs to a hard core standard of proof.  I don't think this is hypocritical, just practical.  The amount of proof I require before believing a claim has to do with the likelihood of the claim, and it's importance.

Interesting. I believe the crux of francismjenkins issue is that people are making decisions based on religious convictions when they should be basing them on scientific facts. As such I imagine francismjenkins would state that religion should be subject to a hard core standard of proof due to the likelihood and importance of the claim in decision making (I would not say theistic people are so religion oriented in their decision making, but I am not talking about my view). Now if one shall be replacing religious convictions with scientific facts as the basis for their decision making, shouldn't those facts be subject to a hard core standard of proof due to the likelihood and importance of the claim in decision making? Just a thought. Otherwise we would be saying that decisions may be based on information that does not pass a hard core standard of proof. In which case in making a decision the information for the basis does not need to meet hard core standards of proof for religion based any more than for science based based.

But in the words of one Captain Jack, "So we agree that my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price."

It's not an intention, it a state of being. I don't believe and never have.  It takes no intent or effort.  Faith takes intent.

To paraphrase: "It's not intention, it a state of being. They believe and always have. It take no intent or effort."

Indeed.  Not to mention that the universe doesn't really appear to be intelligently designed in the first place.  
[\quote]

Hmm. Would not say that? The universe seems to adhere to various mathematical formulas and to have an overall structure and direction with a tendency to eliminate redundancies. It would appear that it is not chaotic and in some way has intelligence to it. However, the intelligent design argument supplants order for artificiality. Artificial structures are implicit circumstantial empirical proof of intelligent design, while ordered structures are indicative of intelligent.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='954904' dateline='1433042252']
It isn't really an argument until someone offers some proof of god.  Until that point, which is where we are now, it's just a naked claim that god exists.

And back we go to proof. Which I again to take to mean that when it comes to God there must be direct explicit empirical proof. That is to say a threshold of proof that nothing meets save tautologies. So even if presented you would say it is tautology and thus circular proof.

I am satisfied with a lesser threshold of proof for God than you (as I maintain the same threshold of proof for god and not for god). I understand the desire for a higher threshold for God and for everything else for that matter. But, as a matter of practicality such a threshold does not exist for things which are not God so I do not hold them to that threshold. Since nothing which has ever served as proof has met the threshold being set for God, could we not say we are being impractical to expect this one thing to meet such a threshold?

[Silver]

could we not say we are being impractical to expect this one thing to meet such a threshold?

No.  

[The Grand Nudger]

A rock meets a higher threshold of proof than god does.  You, apparently, hold god to a lower standard than a rock..and all the mincing of words in the world won't disguise that simple fact - or that your claim regarding what thresholds of proof are available for things other than god -like rocks- is pure bullshit, Anima.

Don't get me wrong, your standards are your own, that's fine...but lets not stretch that and claim that no higher threshholds are available for other things. You have low standards, own that....don't make excuses for it.