Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Per my previous posts, I leave you to your fun here. AND I WON"T BE BACK, SO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS.

God answers prayer.

Bugger off, mate.

Bloody hell, the sheer elitism and pride I'm picking up from your posts is truly sickening. Put a cap on it, eh?

John DD came to troll, he left. I made a joke comment. What is so eliteist?

Is 'elitisim' and 'pride' your definition of standing firm for beliefs that are opposed to yours. The nature of a firm belief is its solidity and the ability to defend it against all comers. This goes both ways, some here defend atheism or agnosticsm very well. Why do you need you resort to ad hominem, is it because you cant challenge me in debate? I have already clearly put the point across, if you want a piece of me on the issues go ahead. If you cant stand aside and let someone else try. Others here put the case for atheism here better and we get on fine.

I see a trend, the more you understand your atheism the less you need to get upset and post rude words, because you can use big words to support your beliefs. This thread is for the big boy trousers. I will respect anyones fair arguments, at any level but wont hold back from trying to pick holes in them. If you are secure in your beliefs this should not be a problem.

Everyone:

Fair enough. I am calm and trying to put points across rationally.

Remember that posts on the internet are often crabbier than intended, inflection is not shown.

In fact Manchu you are a good example of what i posted above you defend you end well. Because your message is not so disagreeable to many of my detractors you are also accepted. Had you been posting in exactly the same way but from my point of view you would be 'arrogant' 'elitist' 'prideful' or plain 'deluded' by now and mocked from several sides. This is because some of these are default opinions before you write a word.

Bible apologists are by popular image supposed to be crusty old hash outs in robes who are irrelevant and out of touch. It can come a shock that some of us are not, or not quite and can stand our ground. When that happens ad hominem attacks flow like a burst dam.

I think you'll find that at least a couple of posters have already insinuated that I am an elitist or just deluded. I have also been defending the concept of faith and the Traditions of the Church, which positions have been disagreeable to the people you call your detractors. This thread has walked a knife edge and survived for 13 pages. Let's keep on with the discussions at hand.

True, but that is because you are a Catholic, which is mainstream. I am a charismatic, which is more hardcore in some ways.

You get it from those who just hate Christianity or religion full stop, I get that plus people who have problems with the content.

We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite.

No seriously, keep it coming. On the issues please.

Man, why do things always get interesting when I have been at work!?!? Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls! Those Papists, always talkin' or doin' something or other

@Orlanth: Hardcore, lol.

There is a charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. I went to one of their masses and sure enough at one point the parishioners were jibber-jabbering ("speaking in tongues"). The movement received some support from John Paul II but Benedict XVI has been cool toward it.

I don't come across many people who hate Christianity or religion. I come across a lot of frustrated people. Some of them misunderstand Christianity because of what they have learned from people who are preaching a person interpretation of the religion (a la Pat Robetson's remarks on Haiti) and some people who have had bad experiences with institutions. I have also seen, especially here on dakka, a lot of people who are frustrated with the idea of Christianity and the history of Christian peoples that they have cooked up from things that they have seen on TV or read on the internet. But I have never felt persecuted in the way that you seem to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Man, why do things always get interesting when I have been at work!?!? Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls! Those Papists, always talkin' or doin' something or other

Ah, JEB. Welcome back. I think most of what I referred to ("apocrypha" aside) is pretty well accepted by the Anglican communion, as well.

Manchu wrote:Hardcore, lol.

Indulge me, I am having fun on most posts. Religious discourse is best not served dry.

Manchu wrote:
There is a charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. I went to one of their masses and sure enough at one point the parishioners were jibber-jabbering ("speaking in tongues"). The movement received some support from John Paul II but Benedict XVI has been cool toward it.

The current pope is very orthodox, which is not a bad thing. Catholicism is best served from the same dish. The main strength of Catholicism is its stoic longevity. Unlike the Church of England and others wghich are trying to get 'trendy' Catholicism stays more of less the same. Frankly this is correct way yo to about things. I believe God wants so many denominations because we serve different peoples its only a problem when a people group exclusively access one type of church. Catholics and charismatics belong hand in hand, such is the Unity in Christ that is to be desired.
i am sure of this because the Catholic church is one of the few places a man can go as a child and return to as an old man and still see the same. This is so important in todays rapidly changing world, where we have few constants. Man is not made for such a pace - we need cultural roots. It is a comfort to me to see the solidity of catholicism, and I hope that when I am old the same Catholic church will still be there.

This is something the Anglicans have sadly forgotten over the last twenty years, the doctrines were already good they bend their style to appear 'relevant' and thus lost their relevancy as the church is intended to reflect the eternal. Since 1997 as the Church of England got progressively politicised, and subject to lay investiture. Yes its sadly true you do need to believe in New Labour to get to be a bishop today, belief in God is optional and is difficult to find if you listen to some of the current lot. I am yet to hear a clear statement of faith from Dr Williams, the Archbishop is there to play the nice guy all things to all men.

Manchu wrote:
I don't come across many people who hate Christianity or religion.

I do from time to time. As I mentioned in a prior post one of my chuch congragation was martyred, stabbed to death, in England. This was an aberration though, and not in any way usual. I just happen to be one of the ones with the testimony of having known her at the time. I have been pointed out and harassed a few times. This was long ago though, I learned to duck.

Manchu wrote:
I come across a lot of frustrated people. Some of them misunderstand Christianity because of what they have learned from people who are preaching a person interpretation of the religion (a la Pat Robetson's remarks on Haiti) and some people who have had bad experiences with institutions. I have also seen, especially here on dakka, a lot of people who are frustrated with the idea of Christianity and the history of Christian peoples that they have cooked up from things that they have seen on TV or read on the internet. But I have never felt persecuted in the way that you seem to.

This is a common problem, and we as part of the church are corporately to blame. I beleive the prime cause of atheism are Christians. Nice God, shame about the fan club.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote: Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls!

You got it wrong.

JEB_Stuart out to have wrote: Manchu verily busted forth his Popish ideas, he layeth down the smack and didst smite the trolls.

There fixed.

@Orlanth: I appreciate your sentiment about Holy Mother Church but it's not quite as you seem to imagine it. Someone who had just stepped out of the 1950s would not recognize the Church as it has become since Vatican II. What you call "longevity" is more accurately described as "continuity." Despite what some ultraconservative Catholics constantly claim, there have been changes. For one thing, I can agree with you in union with my Bishop that it is a good thing that there are many denominations. Before Vatican II, that position would have earned me censure. But all in all, the Church today is the same one founded by Christ. The trouble about being a temporal institution is that you are stuck in history and subject to contingency and conflict. But this is a lesson that even Jesus needed to learn as He overcame the prejudices of His culture during His ministry. And I don't mean just the prejudices against His ministry, but also the ones that He Himself harbored.

I don't want to throw JEB too large of a bone here but I very much admire Archbishop Williams. He is likely a better theologian and contemplative than a bishop but he might also be a better Christian for it.

Manchu wrote:Ah, JEB. Welcome back. I think most of what I referred to ("apocrypha" aside) is pretty well accepted by the Anglican communion, as well.

I would agree. Although it is stated that after death, those not admitted to Heaven will receive eternal punishment, in our Articles of Faith. Not RAW exactly, but certainly RAI. Thank you for the kind words concerning Dr. Williams, and I am definitely inclined to agree with you. He is a kindly old man, and has much compassion in him, but he is not quite cut out for the role of being a bishop. And not to declare to much in the way of Romish sympathies, I do *ahem* adore the current bishop of Rome. Although, he wasn't enough to convince me of conversion, despite what my Papist friends may tell me.

@Orlanth: Might I assume that you are a member of our glorious institution: the Church of England?

Orlanth wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote: Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls!

You got it wrong.

JEB_Stuart out to have wrote: Manchu verily busted forth his Popish ideas, he layeth down the smack and didst smite the trolls.

There fixed.

Okay, I gotta admit it. That was pretty funny.

Sorry, Orlanth. But at times, you come off as downright condescending to some people. It ticks me off a little.

Orlanth wrote:We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite

Done, and done.

Provided you actually have the foggiest idea of what one is, of course. You seem to think that all Atheists are god-deniers and require Faith. If believing that we're all in the same boat in that respect makes you feel better about your Faith, then fine, whatever gets you through the night. Just don't tar me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. I do not pray to 'no-god'. I don't rely on Atheism to get me through difficult times, or give thanks to Atheism for my successes. I do not live my life according to the tenets of Atheism, because there aren't any. Merely having an absence of theism is enough, and that includes everything from god-haters to agnostics.

I don't think a god or gods exist, because I have seen nothing which convinces me otherwise. However is that the same as saying god doesn't exist? No. I don't know that for certain, and neither do you you Orlanth. However the question 'Does god exist?' has a definite scientific answer, that we are currently incapable of answering it is completely irrelevant. We know that there is a way to cure AIDS, or travel to other star-systems - we just don't understand quite what that is yet. Given that it is a question with a definite, factual answer - the fact that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence means that non-belief is a prudent course. Does that equate to closed-mindedness? Absolutely not - I would accept the existence of god, were it proven. Most atheists would.

The statement 'you can't prove that god 'DOESN'T' exist' is not enough to base one's life on, that's all I'm saying.

Saying that 'all Atheists are..' is no different to 'all christians are...', something which most christians on here would have a problem with - however, if you're allowed to use the 'one true scotsman' argument, then so am I: True Atheists are not god deniers (although their beliefs are a-theist, with a small 'a'), as such practice is nonscientific and based on Faith. True Atheists, therefore, would remain open to the possibility of god's existence, however slight, because it is scientifically prudent to do so.

Therefore Atheism = Science.


Your move.

p.s. Apologies if I have offended any OTHER Christians here - that wasn't my intention.

Manchu,

Thanks for the Orson Scott Card link. Definitely an interesting read, especially where he talks about how if the book was a forgery written by the best science fiction authors fully aware of Meso American culture , it still would have been readily apparent as a fake, but he can't find any flaws in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate it as such.
Joseph Smith was an extremely amazing man who went through a lifetime of persecution and eventually martyrdom attesting to the truth of the book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Albatross,

It's a fair point you put across about no evidence God exists, and to be honest, I don't have the wit or education to try to convince you intellectually that he does.
The only thing I could say is to experiment with an open mind towards finding his existence through a desire to have faith in it.
You don't have to have faith, just a desire. It is a hard thing to cultivate, I understand through my own experience, but it's about all I have that I can tell you on the subject outside of the fact that through faith, I know God exists and that he does love us all since we are his literal sons and daughters from before the Earth existed.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite

Done, and done.

Albatross wrote:
Provided you actually have the foggiest idea of what one is, of course. You seem to think that all Atheists are god-deniers and require Faith. If believing that we're all in the same boat in that respect makes you feel better about your Faith, then fine, whatever gets you through the night. Just don't tar me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. I do not pray to 'no-god'. I don't rely on Atheism to get me through difficult times, or give thanks to Atheism for my successes. I do not live my life according to the tenets of Atheism, because there aren't any. Merely having an absence of theism is enough, and that includes everything from god-haters to agnostics.

Well my posts were clearly worded, and didn't imply what you said. Your comment revolves around the words you seem to think. Well you don't know what I think except from what I write, which doesn't support the above.

It is interesting that you posted this as apparently a copy of my opinions, while completely ignoring the comments I actually did make. Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

Well lets look at the content:
None accuses you of praying to no-god, it wouldn't be logical and would be uncharacteristic of my approach to the thread.

Albatross wrote:
I don't think a god or gods exist, because I have seen nothing which convinces me otherwise. However is that the same as saying god doesn't exist? No.

In a way yes. The second comment is the same as the first with a greater degree of surity.

Albatross wrote:
I don't know that for certain, and neither do you you Orlanth.

I have little doubt God exists because I experience His presence. My testimonies as explained earlier back me up on that.
I can go no further than to say I can't prove that to others though, therefore I cannot make a universal comment.

Others on all sides are likely be just as sure, by looking at the evidence and drawing their conclusions as they will.

Albatross wrote:
However the question 'Does god exist?' has a definite scientific answer, that we are currently incapable of answering it is completely irrelevant.

It has a boolean answer, which one is moot.

Albatross wrote:
Given that it is a question with a definite, factual answer - the fact that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence means that non-belief is a prudent course.

Again you completely ignored prior posts as if they were not there. I challenged you on your comments that there was no evidence for God. I call you out on that. You backed off from the challenge. Why?

The idea that there is no scientific evidence for Gods existence is anything but a 'fact'. We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

I would not claim there is no evidence for atheism, I don't agree with it and theists might manage to refute some, but I wont deny it on a point of dogma. Just read Dawkins et al and you will see some. Either way it is not proof. However you keep to this notion that there is no scientific evidence for God, as a dogma, regardless of evidence to the contrary placed in front of you. It's the playground 'la la la la i'm not listening' type of argument, and that sir is anything but honest scientific reasoning.

The point remains there is enough evidence on both sides that the question cannot be conclusively answered within science.

Albatross wrote:
Does that equate to closed-mindedness? Absolutely not - I would accept the existence of god, were it proven. Most atheists would.

No but ignoring evidence put in front of you and continuing with comments that were reasonably challenged. that can fairly be called closed-mindedness I am afraid to say.

I do agree that most atheists would accept the existence of God if proven, though probably not all. As with all forms of point of view some will not be convinced no matter what evidence is placed before them.

Albatross wrote:
The statement 'you can't prove that god 'DOESN'T' exist' is not enough to base one's life on, that's all I'm saying.

Who is basing their faith/life on this? It would be a contradictory comment for an atheist and insufficient for a theist.

Albatross wrote:
Saying that 'all Atheists are..' is no different to 'all christians are...', something which most christians on here would have a problem with - however, if you're allowed to use the 'one true scotsman' argument, then so am I

I have no problem with you speaking you mind either. You forget I opened myself to the challenge and consequently am willing to accommodate your viewpoints. Go ahead.

However the one true scotsman fallacy has not been used, I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence. After all without absolute proof a measure a 'guesswork' is required to come to a person a conclusion, athesists need to guess no more or less than anyone else. This is a fair comment as it goes both ways, I merely omitted that faith is also required for theistic beleif as that is rather obivous.

Go ahead and use the 'one true scotsman' yourself, just remember its regarded as a fallacious argument.

Albatross wrote:
: True Atheists are not god deniers (although their beliefs are a-theist, with a small 'a'), as such practice is nonscientific and based on Faith. True Atheists, therefore, would remain open to the possibility of god's existence, however slight, because it is scientifically prudent to do so.

Just to clarify, God-denier is a loaded term and one I would not use on any specific atheist as denial implies ignoring of evidence. Now some 'atheists' are God-deniers, but only the ones who believe in God and choose to claim otherwise because they hate the concept. That is a God-denier and in a real way not a true atheist.

Your argument stems from the idea that the default scientific point is to believe there is no God, the default point is not atheism, atheism is a conclusion. Now I agree with you that an honest scientifically minded atheist would be open minded to accept a God if found, however a persons theology is subject to change anyway. 'I am not sure so I am an atheist' doesn't actually work. If you are not sure so meanwhile I will practice atheism then you are making a faith choice 'step', granted likely a small one but one nonetheless.

There should be no problem with this. Scientists make 'faith' steps all the time. Do you think scientists discover truths and only then believe in them. No its the other way around, particle theorists look for particles and believe in them long before we build the colliders that find them. Other scientists look for the link they cannot prove, or sometimes cannot even properly theorise because they believe the link is there, and the opposite of course to prove a disconnection. As noone is unrelated to the idea of thanatonic thought, as it is part of our nature to question our mortality, everyone has some form of position on the subject 'yes', 'no' or 'not sure meanwhile yes', not sure meanwhile no'.
If we take your hypothesis that no-one is completely sure, including myself as you put it then we come down to the inevitable simple 'yes' or 'no', with some degree of 'not sure' being part of the standard answer. I can go along with that. with regards to God and religion no-one knows all the answers.

Albatross wrote:
Therefore Atheism = Science.

Stated without addressing the clear and repeated logic that indicates the opposite. Besides even if I just accepted the entirity of the rest of your post, it would not lead 'therefore' to that conclusion. You might have been talking on something else entirely.
If you cant find error in my earlier replies to you just say so and be done with it. If you can quote and challenge what I wrote.

Albatross wrote:
p.s. Apologies if I have offended any OTHER Christians here - that wasn't my intention.

Ad hominem. It is a pity that your arguments are personal, because it holds you back from being objective. This hampers your attempts to reach logical conclusions, and likely explains why you flatly ignore evidence already in situ that refutes much of what you are posting.

What is the one true Scottsman argument?

Relapse wrote:What is the one true Scottsman argument?

One or no true scotsman (both the same):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Its that thing that alot of Christians do..

Anyway, im not going to start over, i mean, i already made my point right?

Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6.

It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists.

I have no issue with Einsteins God, or Spinoza's God, or many well meaning people of "faith", you know, some sort of.. poetic metaphor for that force which created everything or started the whole thing off or something. I worked with a very nice guy once who was in the army, and he talked about God and such.. and when i asked him what religion he was he said "i dont follow religion, i am simply a man of faith" That sounds like a much more acceptable face of belief to me.

The reason i have as issue with Theism, is because it takes so much MORE faith, the most obvious one being, why that God? And not the hundereds (well thousands but lets stick to the big ones) of other Gods or Religions?

And also, none of the holy books even claim that they were written by Gods or Angels right? I may be wrong, and im sure JEB or Orlanth will happily inform me if im incorrect, but they claim to have been inspired by, or dictated right? But always, by their own admission they were actually written by men. Weak, fallible, tall tale telling men.

I just wanted to add that because i genuinelly think that many people like me (agnostic/athiest) have no real issue with Deism, i dont accept it, because there isnt much evidence, but, you know.. whats to dislike?

Theism on the other hand, almost demands that you are a nosey bugger! You know, knocking on my door and such. The reason i have an issue with theism is because it DOES affect my life.

Examples, NHS funding 75 million quid a year for providing Priests!? Dont the churches have enough money? Think of all the ambulances we could buy with that! Muslims and Christian pro-lifers demanding that my daughters or my wife do what they say with regards to their own fething bodies. Or stopping stem cell research or refusing blood transfusions or any one of the number of other things that basically mean YOU get to tell ME what i have to do, and yes can make peoples lives much more miserable.

Thats why i have an issue with Theism, but i have no issues with a Deist, i just kinda think its a tad.. you know.. hard to believe.

You can't disprove a negative. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist.
With lack of evidence either way, I don't see any reason to believe in "God".

If you want to believe in God, you're likely to attribute coincidence to him and make excuses.
If I "pray" for something and get it, I might say that God's been good to me. If I don't get it, well it must be his "will".

Closer to the topic of this thread, I get irritated when churches can decree things evil, even when there's nothing relevant in their holy texts. I find they like to make it up as they go along.

They also come out with polarizing and aggressive statements and then a few years later, change their mind, but become infallible all over again.

I find that most amusing.

mattyrm wrote:
Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

It takes faith for you to ignore the evidences for a Creator though. I.E. I have seen/heard a bunch of testimonies concerning this or that thing, and I have a made a decision that I don't believe it. I have just made a choice by faith. The faith that what I believe is the correct interpretation.

mattyrm wrote:
I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6. .

He has to say that, otherwise he would sound dogmatic, and as an atheist he cannot do that or he seems hypocrytical.

mattyrm wrote:
It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists. .

I'll call you whatever you would like me to call you. The word I prefer, is friend.

It sounds to me that you just don't like being challenged, matty. I personally relish being challenged(as long as it's a respectfull challenge) as it helps me to "sharpen my sword" and learn more about myself and my faith.

Also it seems that you don't have a problem with Theists or Deists per se, but have an issue with the politics associated with them. I tend to agree with you on that point. But you have to admit that it is very hard to not allow your personal beliefs to influence your politics.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

It takes faith for you to ignore the evidences for a Creator though. I.E. I have seen/heard a bunch of testimonies concerning this or that thing, and I have a made a decision that I don't believe it. I have just made a choice by faith. The faith that what I believe is the correct interpretation.

mattyrm wrote:
I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6. .

He has to say that, otherwise he would sound dogmatic, and as an atheist he cannot do that or he seems hypocrytical.

mattyrm wrote:
It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists. .

I'll call you whatever you would like me to call you. The word I prefer, is friend.

It sounds to me that you just don't like being challenged, matty. I personally relish being challenged(as long as it's a respectfull challenge) as it helps me to "sharpen my sword" and learn more about myself and my faith.

Also it seems that you don't have a problem with Theists or Deists per se, but have an issue with the politics associated with them. I tend to agree with you on that point. But you have to admit that it is very hard to not allow your personal beliefs to influence your politics.

GG

This is why, even though i 99% of the time disagree with you : ) I'd still buy you a beer!

frgsinwntr wrote:
This is why, even though i 99% of the time disagree with you : ) I'd still buy you a beer!

Hey Dood! I've been wondering where you were. I asked myself why frigs wasn't participating in the discuss. Welcome!

GG

Orlanth wrote:If you cant find error in my earlier replies to you just say so and be done with it. If you can quote and challenge what I wrote.

Really? I DO actually have a life....

Oh, go on then:

Orlanth wrote:There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality. Neutrality is a long long way from atheism.

Orlanth wrote:'I am not sure so I am an atheist' doesn't actually work. If you are not sure so meanwhile I will practice atheism then you are making a faith choice 'step', granted likely a small one but one nonetheless.

That you don't fully understand the concept of atheism is not my fault. Neutrality is by it's very definition atheist - by way of not subscribing to theistic beliefs. It's the above statement which lead me to not quote and challenge your post in the first place. Educating you on subject of atheism is not my responsibility.

Orlanth wrote:
The idea that there is no scientific evidence for Gods existence is anything but a 'fact'.

Orlanth wrote:Likewise there is evidence the other way, archeological evidence that supports Biblical stories, miracles are also occasionally documented but likewise there is no proof.

Documented miracles? No, sorry. That is valid neither as evidence or as proof - it is human testimony. Humans lie and misinterpret. Biblical stories? Stories such as the ressurection of Christ? The immaculate conception? There is practically no hard physical evidence that Jesus Christ ever even existed. Although I think it's highly likely that he did. Even if such evidence did exist, it wouldn't be inconrovertable proof of his divinity. There is no archeological proof for the existence of god.

Orlanth wrote:We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

Please don't ask me to take this seriously. Next you'll be talking about The Bible Code. Any predictions which may or may not have 'come true' are no doubt as a result of pure coincidence. I am sure there are predictions made in the Bible that haven't come true. Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...
Unreliable.

Orlanth wrote:If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact.

Exactly. You admit yourself that there is no proof for anything you believe. That you want to play with the semiology of words like 'evidence' and 'proof' is your own business. How can atheism be a scientific fact? Again, you seem to be referring to god-denial. No-one here has said that the non-existence of god is a fact.

Orlanth wrote:I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence.

Fair enough, but your statement is incorrect. If the question is not settled, then the logical position is not to make a leap of faith and dedicate your life to god, the logical step is to reserve judgement and not live one's life according to scripture. Which is effectively what you seem to base your faith on.

Orlanth wrote:
Your argument stems from the idea that the default scientific point is to believe there is no God

No it doesn't. I never said that. I said the default point should be not to subscribe to theist beliefs as that requires an acceptance that god exists, something which is scientifically unproven.

Orlanth wrote:Do you think scientists discover truths and only then believe in them?

Erm, no. But they don't accept something as fact until it can be proven.

Orlanth wrote:Ad hominem. It is a pity that your arguments are personal, because it holds you back from being objective. This hampers your attempts to reach logical conclusions, and likely explains why you flatly ignore evidence already in situ that refutes much of what you are posting.

You have been unsuccesful in refuting anything that I posted. Your arguments stem from a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means. If I am unconcerned about offending you it is because you come across as insufferably arogant and smug. I think you are actually a zealot, to be honest. You claim to have 'evidence' that god exists, I ignored it originally because it seemed so risible as to be unworthy of refutation. My arguments are obviously personal, as we are discussing personal belief, and lack thereof. Don't pretend that YOU have reached any logical conclusions, because you haven't. Your faith isn't based on logic.

GG im happy to be challenged, but you answered your question yourself mate, i am more than happy to count Theists and Deists as my friends, indeed, one of my closest long term friends is a devout Catholic, although, when he visited last month he said the last pope was a "dill weed" because he had accepted evolution, so.. i dont know if he is a creationist or a catholic but he says he is the latter!

Yeah, its the politics of it all. I have no issues with religious people, its when they want to try and force their opinions onto other people that i take umbrage, but i can and do of course happily count some religious practitioners as friends.

Albatross wrote: Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...

This may be true, but the fact that we have many thousands of manuscript copies we can compare them to each other and get really darn close to the original. Please see my earlier post, in this very same thread no less!

It's preposterous to believe that the Bible is an unreliable source when the dead sea scrolls themselves proved no real change in over 2,000 years.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:GG im happy to be challenged, but you answered your question yourself mate, i am more than happy to count Theists and Deists as my friends, indeed, one of my closest long term friends is a devout Catholic, although, when he visited last month he said the last pope was a "dill weed" because he had accepted evolution, so.. i dont know if he is a creationist or a catholic but he says he is the latter!

Creationsim and Catholicism aren't mutually exclusive. Neither is evolutionism and Christianity, like some people would believe. I happen to be a creationist, but agree to disagree with my brothers who aren't.

GG

GG wrote:It's preposterous to believe that the Bible is an unreliable source when the dead sea scrolls themselves proved no real change in over 2,000 years.

No change? Really? So the translations from Aramaic through to Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which meant that 'young maid' turned into 'virgin' haven't changed anything? Catholics would say different! Plus have you seen The Gnostic Gospels? They are radically different to modern christian teaching. They read like Mage:The Ascension!

Lol. Yes, because the Bible has been unchanged for millennia, despite the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls being completely different!

You know what this thread needs?

This:


People need to stop taking things that are said as personal attacks against them, and see the for what they are. As has been said countless time, you can't determine inflection or tone in a text format. So don't assume people are talking down to you, they are just defending their side of the debate.

Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: I shouldn't have to explain to you why a book being delivered by an angel is more fantastical than a book written from memory (of either events witnessed first hand or described to him by someone else). I'm having difficulty understanding the rest of your post.

Books from memory inherently have the hazard of editorial bias. The further from the event the more likely the event is modified at least probably per Wang and Aamodt. We've no way to disprove or prove the more fantastic accounts in these gospels. Maybe nobody's special enough any more, mankind simply understands the world more, or oral tradition has the responsibility to entertain as much as inform. Books from memory may be *less* fantastical but does that remove the likelihood of error?

To accept these accounts inherently requires an acceptance of the fantastic. One 'holy' spirit implies the possibility of a host of other spirits of a myriad of flavors. Converting a woman to salt, causing spontaneous fermentation, and rising from the dead all demand we accept that under special circumstances all of these things are in some way true and possible. This is a recipe for folklore rather than evidence whether delivered purportedly by a divine being or inspired by memory of years past. Purnis suggests that Beowulf is rife with historical details despite its fantastic events as well.

I'm not trying to evidence whether or not Catholics (any flavor of Christians really), Pastafarians, Muslims, or Wiccans are wrong. I'm trying to explain the possibility that several groups with the same behaviors and lack of evidence all could be equally wrong or right. Throughout this whole discussion its been expected that I accept the veracity of the doctrine you were taught and you were somehow more qualified by virtue of doctrine as accurate. I'm correlating general behavior and subjecting each of these fantastic accounts to the same expectations.

@ ironhide - Yeah, sounds like a plan. A miracle, a few beers, and maybe a pizza...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It's a fair point you put across about no evidence God exists, and to be honest, I don't have the wit or education to try to convince you intellectually that he does.

I wish someone could for me. Demanding evidence is a cold comfort when we read accounts of the horrors mankind perpetrates on itself. No gods means mankind is just a dirty vicious animal wit self-inspired ideals. Gods get genuinely scary..but leave me reasonably happy I haven't gotten their attention.

I think some people are confusing "lack of faith" with "faith" itself.
Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.