The debate is over

[Epimethean]

And that, I think, is what it really comes down to. Being ill-informed about living in fantasy? I think he sees it for the disease it is. It would have to be embarrassing to have to talk with any seriousness to the self-deluded regarding their love of an irreality the "truth" of which they have never yet substantiated with an iota of evidence.

There's nothing fantasy-like about the existence of various religious peoples, the history of their religions, and their practices. They all actually exist in reality and if you're planning to criticise them I think you ought to understand them first. Of course, if you're critcising general things, like the validity of belief without evidence that's fine. If you're criticising the Bible on some point, however, you'd better actually be familiar with the Bible.

Firstly, let me assert that my criticism of religion runs along the lines of scientific method and finds no response based on evidence. Secondly, I am reasonably familiar with religion, having been raised with it, compelled to go through catechism, and, further, having studied it through comparative religion courses. The existence of UFO nuts doesn't compel me to spend much time on their bullshit, either. Given a finite amount of time in a given day, I will spend mine on what is demonstrably real rather than the pursuit of the promise of life after death, which, when it comes down to it, is what monotheism is about and the main reason it attracts people like a bad infomercial. And, regarding your comment on there being nothing fantasy-like about the "practices" of religious peoples, you may want to restate that.

[Minimalist]

There's nothing fantasy-like about the existence of various religious peoples, the history of their religions, and their practices.

The chasm between what their religion says and what the sanctimonious motherfuckers actually DO is miles wide. Xtians...according to their alleged "god" are supposed to 'turn the other cheek" not drop cluster bombs on refugee camps.

I don't need to know any fucking thing about jesus to know that his followers are dangerous.

[Tempus]

---

There's nothing fantasy-like about the existence of various religious peoples, the history of their religions, and their practices. They all actually exist in reality and if you're planning to criticise them I think you ought to understand them first. Of course, if you're critcising general things, like the validity of belief without evidence that's fine. If you're criticising the Bible on some point, however, you'd better actually be familiar with the Bible.

---

Firstly, let me assert that my criticism of religion runs along the lines of scientific method and finds no response based on evidence. Secondly, I am reasonably familiar with religion, having been raised with it, compelled to go through catechism, and, further, having studied it through comparative religion courses.

I should probably start by apologising; my excessive use of the word 'you' in my post makes it seem like I'm addressing you and assuming you're ignorant, which wasn't my intention. I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

The existence of UFO nuts doesn't compel me to spend much time on their bullshit, either. Given a finite amount of time in a given day, I will spend mine on what is demonstrably real rather than the pursuit of the promise of life after death, which, when it comes down to it, is what monotheism is about and the main reason it attracts people like a bad infomercial.

I agree that it's not worth looking into the specifics of something like astrology and learning all its ins and outs if it can't even be established that it works to begin with -- it'd be a colossal waste of time. Pointing out that there's no reason to believe astrology works, that its predictions are accurate at a rate consistent with what's expected from chance, etc, are valid criticisms. What I was getting at was that making claims about the specifics of that belief system or its history requires research, regardless of whether you or I think that's a useful way to spend time. If someone wants to claim that astrologers think Mars represents envy (or whatever), that astrology was started by people who thought themselves witches, etc, they need to actually do their research, they can't just rely on popular stereotypes in lieu of proper research. There are ways to be wrong about astrology, just as there are ways to be wrong about the sequence of events in Harry Potter books. I'm not trying to suggest you don't already know this (I think we probably actually see eye to eye on this), I'm just trying to clarify my point.

And, regarding your comment on there being nothing fantasy-like about the "practices" of religious peoples, you may want to restate that.

I meant the practices themselves exist, that there are facts to be known about them and there are ways to be ignorant of them and their intended effects. That doesn't mean I think the aims of these practices necessarily make any sense. Perhaps I could've been more clear about that.

[Light of Truth]

The debate is most certainly not over. Google any debates with William Lane Craig or John Lennox. Both are highly intelligent Christians who have held there own against the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I may not agree with them, but they make compelling cases.

You really think they make compelling cases?

Sorry, but asserting that their god is eternal is far from compelling.

Every argument I've heard from either of them are nothing more than reworked Kalam Cosmological arguments, argument from design, etc. They are all fallacious.

How is asserting that their god is eternal a problem? Many atheists have no problem asserting that the universe has always existed, or that the universe happened out of nothing. Why could the same not be true for god(s)? Why couldn't a god have always existed or happened out of nothing? If it can be said for the universe, why could it not be said for god(s)? There is no way you can prove that it cannot. You might say something about Occam's Razor, and that the simpler answer is that the universe has always existed/happened out of nothing, but that doesn't really mean anything. Occam's Razor is just an idea and is not something that proves truth. Therefore, it is entirely possible, though, in my opinion, not likely, that god(s) exist, and there is nothing that can be said to prove that god(s) do not.

[Reforged]

LOL. Dawkins' ignorance? Good one, Fr0ds. Next, you'll be telling us that god created the universe.


Oh. Right.

Dawkins is a self proclaimed religious ignoramus Epi. See the way he flushes with embarrassment when he talks about it sometimes. He's the perfect counter fundy to his own argument.

I see that you don't get basic logic either. That also doesn't seem to stop you wanting to make a fool of yourself either.

What Dawkins gets money out of you suckers for is ill researched, ill considered tittle tattle of as much interest as that waffle which transpires between bored housewives over daytime TV. You guys then repeat that shit like it has some kind of intellectual traction with thinking adults. I live in hope that one day you'll work out the true delusion.

Yeah, you're right. Hes only a dedicated biologist/ethologist whos worked in his tried and tested field longer than you've been alive, what the fuck does he know about how life works? I'd much rather listen to you with your vast expertiese gained from... the salvation army. Please, share with us all your wondrous knowledge on where all the countless species on this planet emerged from.

As for the rest of your statement I've carefully constructed a counter-point that adequetely addresses the rest of your points with all the intellectualism required to rival such a challenging argument:




*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- wait, I'm not done - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan*



Ok, done now.
... :-)

[Tempus]

How is asserting that their god is eternal a problem? Many atheists have no problem asserting that the universe has always existed, or that the universe happened out of nothing. Why could the same not be true for god(s)? Why couldn't a god have always existed or happened out of nothing? If it can be said for the universe, why could it not be said for god(s)? There is no way you can prove that it cannot. You might say something about Occam's Razor, and that the simpler answer is that the universe has always existed/happened out of nothing, but that doesn't really mean anything. Occam's Razor is just an idea and is not something that proves truth. Therefore, it is entirely possible, though, in my opinion, not likely, that god(s) exist, and there is nothing that can be said to prove that god(s) do not.

Pointing out that something is unable to be disproven is not the same as making a compelling case for it. You can't disprove I'm an alien, for example. The fact that you can't disprove it isn't a compelling reason to believe it. The reason all their assertions are problematic is because they haven't proven any of them. While I do think a negative can be reasonably proven, it's usually more difficult and most god concepts are formulated in such a way as to be practically unfalsifiable. That being said, I think there's certain gods which can be reasonably said to not exist, including, but not limited to, specific formulations of the Christian god.

[Light of Truth]

How is asserting that their god is eternal a problem? Many atheists have no problem asserting that the universe has always existed, or that the universe happened out of nothing. Why could the same not be true for god(s)? Why couldn't a god have always existed or happened out of nothing? If it can be said for the universe, why could it not be said for god(s)? There is no way you can prove that it cannot. You might say something about Occam's Razor, and that the simpler answer is that the universe has always existed/happened out of nothing, but that doesn't really mean anything. Occam's Razor is just an idea and is not something that proves truth. Therefore, it is entirely possible, though, in my opinion, not likely, that god(s) exist, and there is nothing that can be said to prove that god(s) do not.

Pointing out that something is unable to be disproven is not the same as making a compelling case for it. You can't disprove I'm an alien, for example. The fact that you can't disprove it isn't a compelling reason to believe it. The reason all their assertions are problematic is because they haven't proven any of them. While I do think a negative can be reasonably proven, it's usually more difficult and most god concepts are formulated in such a way as to be practically unfalsifiable. That being said, I think there's certain gods which can be reasonably said to not exist, including, but not limited to, specific formulations of the Christian god.

Not all things that cannot be disproved are on the same level. Fairies and the Christian god are not on the same level. I know you didn't reference fairies; I was just using them as an example. The person Jesus almost certainly existed. We find out about him not only in Christian texts, but also non-Christian texts. For instance, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus. As to the divinity of Jesus, let us take the Gospel of Mark into consideration. We know that Mark was the author of this gospel because of the writings of Papias, which we get from Irenaeus. He says that Mark was linked to Peter and upon Peter's death there was the dire need to write down the knowledge that Peter possessed. Mark, who would have been familiar with what Peter knew, wrote this down into his gospel. Peter died around 67 C.E. and the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 C.E. It is perfectly possible that Mark adequately wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) knew. This is an adequate argument for the veracity of the gospels, since the other two of the synoptic gospels were clearly derived from Mark. And John, which was written independently of the synoptic gospels, corroborates their accounts. If the gospels are reliable, then their account of Jesus is.

I am a soft atheist, so I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus for various reasons, but how can the above argument not be seen as a good one?

[Creed of Heresy]

"The debate is over."

As this thread proves...it's NEVER over. It goes on ad infinitum, an endless tangle of points, arguments, and counter-arguments, and alas, ultimately, as freethinkers, our greatest strength and virtue [for lack of a better term] is also our greatest hindrance in this eternal debate; that our arguments are based in evidence. Our knowledge is finite. There is ultimately a point in which we suddenly come to a stop, the very limits of human knowledge, and beyond that point is darkness, the unknown, where there is no certainty. The greatest detractor, the largest downside to the theistic stance, is ultimately its greatest asset in the eternal debate; its lack of basis in reality. We must stop our argument at the borders of human knowledge; the theists can dance right out into it, dancing gleefully; the "god of the gaps" is, to them, proof. Never mind for a moment that this is a fallacy of logic; the theistic, the credulous, the faithful? To them, that they can simply outlast the argument of evidence with their beliefs is all the "evidence" they need of their supremacy. Never mind the thousand points we win; the ultimate goal, the "god goal," to them, is untouchable, and in their minds' collective eyes, since it can never be touched, it endures.

Anyone free of credulous thought and solipsistic wishful thinking, of course, sees this for the lunacy and stupidity that it is. Alas, then we get people like Fr0d0 who have never heard of the logical issues with the slippery slope involved with belief and simply pick-and-choose their way into a solipsistic means of comfort. Fine by me, naturally. The theists can do what they will. If they ever learn to shut the fuck up and quit bringing up the topic, I will never feel the need to tear them apart.

Unfortunately I cannot go a week without someone genuinely trying to drag their silly beliefs into a real-world context and then they get all pissy when I, in turn, make my opinions known. If you don't like it, keep your own fucking opinions to yourself, because MY opinions will hurt your feelings.

For the record: Yeah, Dawkins IS an absolutely ignorant idiot when it comes to discussion religion, which is why he doesn't discuss the point of religion itself but discusses the general, overall points that religions have always tried to make that science has long since torn to pieces and tossed into the fire. I know a ton about Christianity; every point the man makes on the topic of Christianity in a real-world sense is spot-on the bullseye every single time. To expect the man to drag himself down to the intellectual level of kindergarteners [the only age range people should still believe in a fucking talking snake and a man coming back to life and rising into the sky and angels] to argue the nuances and intricacies of such illogical, impossible, unfounded unscientific BS is unbelievably [see what I did there?] ridiculous and earns little more than a deep, jolly belly laugh from me.

But me, personally, I'd rather use "god is not Great" as an introduction book on questioning beliefs and religion in general.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How is asserting that their god is eternal a problem? Many atheists have no problem asserting that the universe has always existed, or that the universe happened out of nothing. Why could the same not be true for god(s)? Why couldn't a god have always existed or happened out of nothin If it can be said for the universe, why could it not be said for god(s)?

If a universe has always existed or came out of nothing, then there is no need for any gods. Name something that has never been needed that exists.

Let's not forget that at the simplest level, that god is a substitute for the unknowable.

Therefore, it is entirely possible, though, in my opinion, not likely, that god(s) exist, and there is nothing that can be said to prove that god(s) do not.

Why is entirely possible that gods exist?

[Creed of Heresy]

Not all things that cannot be disproved are on the same level. Fairies and the Christian god are not on the same level. I know you didn't reference fairies; I was just using them as an example. The person Jesus almost certainly existed. We find out about him not only in Christian texts, but also non-Christian texts. For instance, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.

You mean, "We find out about him only in Christian texts, and he is mentioned as an afterthought by Josephus, and Tacitus also briefly mentions followers of 'Christus' but never mentions the man himself, and is referring not to the disciples but of people who were the earliest believers, even though there are 40 other historians of the time and geographic location who never make a peep about him."

So no. He did not almost certainly exist. The existence of Jesus is, too, ridiculously vague and based on extremely minimalistic amounts of evidence and testimony from men who wrote all their information supposedly six decades later...in a time where the average life expectancy was about four to five decades.

I call bullshit.

Do I believe there was a prophetic figure of some kind? One who attracted a large following? Yes. Is that evidence for anything else regarding the accounts? No. The history books are riddled with self-proclaimed prophets who achieved large followings, and to this very day they STILL pop up! Scientology, anyone?? Just because a claim is made and there are verified reports of existence does NOT make the claims true beyond naming that Prophet X existed in some way, and it certainly doesn't make Prophet X's suppose supernatural workings real, either.