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.

Monster Rain wrote:She turned around after he told her not to.

It's generally a good practice to do what a Deity specifically tells you to do.

Like Orpheus and Eurydice, only she wasn't turned into a soup ingredient.

While the rumblings where always there it seems it took 3 pages for this to turn into a full blown christian versus atheist thread. That is one more page than I expected honestly.

Monster Rain wrote:

It's generally a good practice to do what a Deity specifically tells you to do.

Thread winner!!

GG

Ahtman wrote:While the rumblings where always there it seems it took 3 pages for this to turn into a full blown christian versus atheist thread. That is one more page than I expected honestly.

Oh ye of little faith...

Well, Dakka has always been home to more than it's share of feisty atheists that really seem to have an ax to grind with religion.

generalgrog wrote:By the way the "Can God create a rock that he can't lift" thing is as old as Aristotle.

Everything is as old as Aristotle

dogma wrote:A few of them are. For example, a spherical triangle is logically impossible due both to definitional limitations; basically a two dimensional object with three sides cannot ever also be spherical. The same goes for 2+2 equaling three, at least where what's being accomplished is more than a semantic change; ie. not just calling the result of 2+2 3 instead of 4, which any human could reasonably do.

However, it isn't logically impossible to create a sandwich too big to eat because its the ability to eat a thing isn't tied to the ability to make a thing. Its only logically impossible if we posit that God is bound by the laws of the Universe, and omnipotent. If he isn't, then it doesn't matter because an omnipotent being that can alter the laws of existence in arbitrary ways would not logically be subject to those laws.

Only if you consider it just a sandwich, and not an item with specific properties. In this case, it would need to be an item with the specific properties 'too big for God to eat' and 'not so big that God can't eat it'. Which is exactly as impossible as making 2+2=3.

Essentially, yes.

If you choose to believe so, then sure. But that's hardly the only possible understanding of God.

The rock criticism really only attacks the notion of an omnipotent God anyway.

It doesn't attack the notion of His omnipotence. It questions the nature of omnipotence, and suggests that even absolute power might be bounded by some fundamental limits.

generalgrog wrote:I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.

Having heretical beliefs would make them heretical, not cults. To be a cult you really need to be a tightly closed organisation that controls access to the outside world, and that is harmful to members. I'm not saying these groups aren't (although given the scope of something like the Church of Mormon you really can't generalise the whole thing, and instead have to look at individual groups), just saying that simply heretical beliefs alone do not make a cult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, Dakka has always been home to more than it's share of feisty atheists that really seem to have an ax to grind with religion.

Even as an atheist, I've found the atheists in Dakka threads consistently more annoying than the Christians in these threads.

I can step up my game, if you'd like

I guess as a person who takes comfort in my faith and thus doesn't feel the need to get riled up about it, I secretly wonder if it's a personality thing that leads to annoying zealotry, or just some sort of overcompensation.

If I for a minute thought that somebody wasn't hip to the idea of Christianity, I'd do my duty and bring them up to speed. At this point, I feel like most people have made up their minds, and if they haven't, they know where to get some Jesus. I'm a semi-practicing cafeteria Catholic because it works for me, I like the ritual, and the odds of me finding the sermon intellectually or personally upsetting are slim. But i could give damn what anybody else does.

Fundamentalist christians at least have a bit of an excuse in that they feel it's their duty to save non-believers. I'm a fan of the soft sell, in business, with the ladies, and I don't see why I should change my approach with religion. I mean, you'd think that after the spiritual catharsis of being reborn, you'd chill the hell out, but since most active Christian recruits fall into evangelical movements that are full of energy, i guess we have to listen to it.

It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?

Polonius wrote:What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?

You can reject the idea of god and still not be an atheist you know.

Polonius wrote:IFundamentalist christians at least have a bit of an excuse in that they feel it's their duty to save non-believers.

And yet they are probably responsible for more people disliking religion. They are the poster boys for intolerance more often than not.

They are called "angry athiests".

Even though I do not agree with much of what Richard Dawkins has to say, at least he is not an angry athiest and is a gentlemen. Unlike Bill Mahrer for example.

I think the question is why are they so angry?

Are they angry because they feel betrayed by a religious upbringing? Maybe like mattyrm they feel that religion is harmful and they feel that they must do something about it? Kind of an athiest crusade if you will?

I used to be an angry athiest myself, mainly because I was just miserable with my life and I had to take it out on someone. Also I was very arrogant in my late teens, thinking I was smarter than everyone else.

GG

Polonius wrote:

It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?

Kind of hard to be out of the game when it is all around.

Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.

Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.

@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.

Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.

@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental

Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.

So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.

He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.

GG

ChaosGalvatron wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.

Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.

@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental

Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer to this quesion: why are you so upset? And why are you directing that emotion into words intended to demean the beliefs of others?

I mean, I can see deciding you don't need religion. I can understand not needing spirituality. I don't feel the same way, but I don't feel the need to mock those that do. Why are you so clearly irked by the concept of faith?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.

He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.

GG

yeah, it's not exactly upper level logical thinking.

The free will debate shouldn't get sucked into it. Maybe I'm too steeped in paradoxical beliefs, but I guess I don't have a problem with the idea of God giving us true free will, and playing by the rules. Sure, he could figure out what will happen, but he doesn't. We have free will despite god being all knowing because god is also able to bend the rules to allow it.

In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.

I think one of the greatest misconceptions of our time is that one side or the other (religion vs. atheism) is "forcing" their views on the other side. From the whole prayer in school debate to evolution to nativity scenes in the public square. These have all been used by both sides as examples of how the other is oppressing us OH NOES!

I think a lot of the vehemence seen on these forms is more a result of political differences and the 24 hour news cycle than real hatred.

sebster wrote:
Only if you consider it just a sandwich, and not an item with specific properties. In this case, it would need to be an item with the specific properties 'too big for God to eat' and 'not so big that God can't eat it'. Which is exactly as impossible as making 2+2=3.

Never mind, you're right. I was going to make an argument from para-consistency, but it would apply to all the cases described.

sebster wrote:
It doesn't attack the notion of His omnipotence. It questions the nature of omnipotence, and suggests that even absolute power might be bounded by some fundamental limits.

That's what I was getting at. It isn't especially dissimilar from the argument from the limitations of the will that I made earlier.

Hey, I dislike bible bangers as much as most atheists, especially since many of them don't even consider me a Christian. But you learn to just ignore them.

I think I see what you're saying: religion is a pretty big, organized force trying to get it's way. Atheists really have to just take their shots when they can.

I still think that if you've attained what you consider to be a higher moral form, you shouldn't act like an ass about it (this applies to everybody), but that's just my opinion.

Polonius wrote:

ChaosGalvatron wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.

Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.

@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental

Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer to this quesion: why are you so upset? And why are you directing that emotion into words intended to demean the beliefs of others?

I mean, I can see deciding you don't need religion. I can understand not needing spirituality. I don't feel the same way, but I don't feel the need to mock those that do. Why are you so clearly irked by the concept of faith?

I dont think i am upset. Im not angry or irked by the concept of faith. I dont say things to deliberately demean peoples beliefs. I know religious people (friends and relatives) who i couldnt think higher of in their care for other people and their kindness. I also know religious jerks. I also know non-religious jerks (i may be one)
I personally don't believe in any deity, afterlife or greater power which kind of by default means i am anti-religion.
Its kind of hard to say "i dont believe in any god" without it coming across as "all your beliefs are nonsense and make believe" since really that is what it means.
I find religion fascinating from an anthropological view, currently im reading 2 books about a historical basis for jesus, as well as another book that theorises that much of the old testament was written between about 800-600 BC and reflects the viewpoints and reality of that time. I've also read other books about the origin of egyptian gods (promoted proto-pharoahs in many cases or absorbed from different tribes).
I also find philosophy very interesting, such as the arguments for/against Free Will in the other thread.

generalgrog wrote:
He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.

Well, its not quite that bad, as the term "God" is sufficiently vague as to open the possibility for a basic "If, then" solution. Granting the color green physical properties that are unrelated to light properties, on the other hand, is ridiculous given our present knowledge of green.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.

Given the longevity of the philosophical free will debate, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

Sorry, but when you say things like "God is evil and anything but loving" or "If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum" it's hard to paint yourself as a dispassionate commentator.

And it's actually not that hard to state a belief without coming across as saying somebody else's belief is make believe. Not referring to those beliefs as "imaginary" is a good start. Another way is to focus less on what you don't believe in, and more on what you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.

Given the longevity of the philosophical free will debate, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless. I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.

Polonius wrote:Sorry, but when you say things like "God is evil and anything but loving" or "If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum" it's hard to paint yourself as a dispassionate commentator.

And it's actually not that hard to state a belief without coming across as saying somebody else's belief is make believe. Not referring to those beliefs as "imaginary" is a good start. Another way is to focus less on what you don't believe in, and more on what you do.

Im not a dispassionate commentator, but im also not bitter or angry at religion.
When i read what is in the old testament about God i do find him evil and hardly loving (heck this guy tested the devoutness of abraham by ordering him to sacrifice his son, let Job go through immense torment just to show how much he believed in him).
But i am an atheist so my belief is that God is imaginary and make believe. How do i sugar coat that to not make religious people feel demeaned? That im practically the same as you only i dont believe in 1 more deity than you do?

ChaosGalvatron wrote:Im not a dispassionate commentator, but im also not bitter or angry at religion.

As a dispassionate commentator...

Yeah, you really come off that way.

Polonius wrote:


I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless. I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.

How did you decide that the faith/denomination you chose had the answers versus other denominations/faiths?
And isnt your last sentence indicating that you use facts where available, and where they are unavailable you turn to religion?

Polonius wrote:
I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless.

No joke. Funny thing is, I'm inherently far more critical of any philosopher who tries to sell me on the usefulness of philosophy. Don't get me wrong, it has its uses in terms of amusement, and even occasionally with respect to physical achievement, but the people that get to manifest those ideas are few and far between; and usually more than just philosophers.

I mean, if I'm being honest, the best thing I got out of my philosophy major was my training in logic and math; both of which have many, many uses.

Polonius wrote:
I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.

I would have shared that sentiment at one point. Though my faith would have been more towards the "angry atheist" end of the spectrum. Now I'm just here for the vodka and the existentialism.

Well, and TMZ, can't get enough of that noise.

Maybe the flaw isn't in the statement, but the point of view. God may not be acting in malevolence, we can't say. We can't even begin to apply logic to this debate, because we're all interpreting things differently, and as we're all are so very well fond of, logic is, by definition "solid". How are differing interpretations even remotely solid? "I think so" is not logical, "I think so" is just an opinion, and while it might be based in logic, that's what it is. Based. As in, twisted by all of our biases as human beings. So, we can't say we used logic to prove God exists/doesn't exist, because real "solid logic" requires absolute impartial fact.

The problem with these ridiculous and pointless religious discussions is that we're all arguing something we can't really solve. "He doesn't exist 'cause science says so" is ridiculous, that's like if I lived in the 1400s and tried to tell people the future would have wagons that could move by themselves. I wouldn't have any proof, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sure most would say "Then why haven't we found him yet?" I say "Well, why didn't they have cars in the 1400s?"

However, in the same vein, it's stupid to say "Oh, God exists 'cause the Bible says he does." The Bible was written by men, and they didn't really know if God existed either. They BELIEVED he did, but that doesn't mean they had proof.

Essentially, all these stupid "God's not real" threads devolve into people stroking their pointless internet egos in an attempt to say "Ha ha ha I win because my logic is the best" when in reality the only person who seems to support that claim is the person themselves. Logic is a double-edged sword, just because you can use it to disprove God doesn't mean you can't use it to prove his existence, it's just that much harder without evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

And amen to you, Polonius and dogma. Philosophy is just a bunch of pricks arguing something from their own viewpoint and refusing to back down because they're too busy holding the things they say as absolute truth. GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.

So while both sides are laughing at each other, I hope both of you (Religious people and Atheists) realize the only real important message these debates bring, that unshakable and illogical belief in something, whether it's God, Science, or whatever, doesn't do ANYbody any good whatsoever. Because real logic can't be proven itself. (If you're a real die-hard skeptic you'd doubt your own existence) and on top of that, it provokes violence, which if anything makes these situations worse. If you REALLY want to do something notable, rather than try to piss off religious folk and stroke arguments, go feed homeless people or something.

Cryonicleech wrote: GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.

Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.

Cryonic these threads serve a very valuable purpose for me. Believe it or not I learn stuff from them, so I disagree with your notion that they are pointless. It also helps me to see what other people are thinking, to help me evaluate my own point of view. And of course they are valuable testing grounds for real life debates I may have in the future.

GG

Ahtman wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote: GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.

Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.

Probably. Then again, I'm sure plenty others would disagree.

Eh, I could suppose as much generalgrog, but honestly these threads are born like, once-twice a month and eat away at about a week or so before closed for personal attacks and flamefests.

Polonius wrote:It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?

Yeah, it's a weird one. I don't believe, and part of that non-belief is that it really doesn't bother me if you believe or not. Why would it?

I think in a lot of cases people aren't just content with making their own choices, they have to support them by telling someone else their choice is wrong. It's like you ask someone if they like chocolate or vanilla, they pick chocolate and then you ask them why, and as often as not they'll say it's because vanilla is bland. It isn't just enough for a person to choose chocolate, they have to believe the other option is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:They are called "angry athiests".

Even though I do not agree with much of what Richard Dawkins has to say, at least he is not an angry athiest and is a gentlemen. Unlike Bill Mahrer for example.

I think the question is why are they so angry?

Bill Maher is a jerk on a whole lot of topics other than atheism, so in that case it might just be him. In a lot of other cases, I think it's just about people being unable to be happy in their own choice, they have to argue the other choice is wrong.

Though I accept that some people were raised with religion forced upon them, I think if I was made to sit a church every week and listen to stuff I didn't believe in, I'd be a little resentful. It wouldn't justify criticising other people's choices, but it might explain some of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.

He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.

GG

It would be a logical impossibility, if one takes as granted the idea that's God's power is truly, completely absolute, without limitation for any logical paradox. The point of the argument, in my opinion, is to get people thinking about whether or not power really exists at that level, and how that relates to their view of God.

The problem with the answer you give comes up when you look at free will, which is basically a variation on the 'rock so heavy even God could not lift it' argument, albeit one with a far greater level of relevance. See, free will argues there is evil because God cannot grant us the free will to do evil if we please, but keep us safe from the consequences - something that doesn't work if God is capable of building a world beyond our logical limitations.

This is not a problem if you don't have any time for the argument of free will and have some other explanation to reconcile God's 3 O status and the presence of evil in the world, but if you do rely on free will it is problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:yeah, it's not exactly upper level logical thinking.

The free will debate shouldn't get sucked into it. Maybe I'm too steeped in paradoxical beliefs, but I guess I don't have a problem with the idea of God giving us true free will, and playing by the rules.

Because if God has power beyond what we see as logical limitations, then he didn't need to create a world where free will necessitated evil.

Because if he is capable doing the logically impossible, such as creating a rock so heavy even he can't lift it, and then lifting it anyway, he is capable of granting us free will, and then keeping us safe from the evil that would follow.

In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.

I personally think it's only possible to explain free will with a God, or something very much like it. I don't believe free will is possible in an entirely materialist world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Never mind, you're right. I was going to make an argument from para-consistency, but it would apply to all the cases described.

Yeah, an argument from para-consistancy would work, but would work for all examples like you said. I think it would end up taking a form more or less equivalent with the lecture in the podcast GG mentioned.

That's what I was getting at. It isn't especially dissimilar from the argument from the limitations of the will that I made earlier.

Heh, when you wrote that I quoted it and started to write a post saying it was largely what I'd been saying. I'm not sure why I decided to cancel that post.

Ahtman wrote:
Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.

I was going to say "How did you miss Russell?", but then I remembered that Russell's ultimate argument was sleeping with his opponent's wives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Yeah, an argument from para-consistancy would work, but would work for all examples like you said. I think it would end up taking a form more or less equivalent with the lecture in the podcast GG mentioned.

Ah, not that sort of para-consistency. One of the other sorts. The one that allows for P and -P to be simultaneously true.