The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:46 pm
Now, that's interesting. What do you mean when you say they're "wrong"?
Well I don't really know why pornography was in there, you must have your own reasons for including it but I wouldn't put it in the same category as the rest. If I find the thought of being subjected to murder objectionable, which I do, I can hardly say it's okay for someone else, can I? Like many people, I have an aversion to seeing people in extreme distress, therefore I try to avoid causing it. I can't explain the mental or psychological process that gives rise to this aversion but that doesn't prevent it from being effective.
If you say that your moral views are binding, then it is you who has to answer the skeptic as to why he / she is obligated.

So what would you say?
I'd say my principles are as important to me as God's are to you. Furthermore, as I undeniably do exist and God most probably does not, it makes more sense for me to put my faith in in me.
Christianity has chopped and changed through the ages.
What did you have in mind?
Well I believe they've abandoned the practice of hunting down witches to burn and -at least part of- the Christian establishment has changed its attitude towards homosexuality. There's probably much more but my lack of interest is most likely responsible for me not noticing what exactly.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:22 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:43 pm
Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.
What sort of argument is this? This is just a hypothetical scenario off the top of your head tailored to fit the bogus point you are trying to make.
"Welcome to the Atheist State. We've reserved your room."
Attachments
Russian spy laughing through his execution in Finland, 1942 (3).jpg
Russian spy laughing through his execution in Finland, 1942 (3).jpg (50.17 KiB) Viewed 331 times

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:22 pm
Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:43 pm
Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.
What sort of argument is this? This is just a hypothetical scenario off the top of your head tailored to fit the bogus point you are trying to make.
"Welcome to the Atheist State. We've reserved your room."
Firstly, prove this man is an atheist. Then prove he is typical of all atheists. Meanwhile, I'll go on Google and find a picture of a Christian murdering someone. In fact, prove this man is not a Christian.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:46 pm
Now, that's interesting. What do you mean when you say they're "wrong"?
Well I don't really know why pornography was in there, you must have your own reasons for including it but I wouldn't put it in the same category as the rest. If I find the thought of being subjected to murder objectionable, which I do, I can hardly say it's okay for someone else, can I?
Sure you can.

As an Atheist, if you were one, there would be no reason you owe anybody the same as you get. Who says?
Like many people, I have an aversion to seeing people in extreme distress, therefore I try to avoid causing it. I can't explain the mental or psychological process that gives rise to this aversion but that doesn't prevent it from being effective.
For you, yes...I don't doubt it. But for all Atheists? That's pretty clearly not the case.
If you say that your moral views are binding, then it is you who has to answer the skeptic as to why he / she is obligated.

So what would you say?
I'd say my principles are as important to me as God's are to you.
Maybe. But that's not the question.

They might "bind" you, but do they "bind" anybody else? If they don't, then they're just your personal preference. You happen to be a nice guy, maybe; but there's no reason in that fact that anybody else has to be.
...Furthermore, as I undeniably do exist and God most probably does not...
What has made this "probable" to you?
Christianity has chopped and changed through the ages.
What did you have in mind?
Well I believe they've abandoned the practice of hunting down witches to burn and -at least part of- the Christian establishment has changed its attitude towards homosexuality.
The Christian moral position on these is abundantly clear, and has always been. But that perfidious human nature of ours...some people do what God commands, and some fail to do so, and some do things not commanded...even invoking the name of God to back them in that.

That's not a fault of the morality, and certainly not of God. It's just further evidence of the perfidy of human nature, and the remoteness that capitulating to human nature will ever produce the ideal state. Meanwhile, nothing about the moral truth has changed there. If witchcraft or homosexuality were morally right, they would always have been so, regardless of people's practices with regard to them; and if they were not, then no amount of modern accommodation can ever make them moral. They are as they are.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:38 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:33 pm
Firstly, prove this man is an atheist.
You're right. Being a privileged functionary of the Soviet state, he's probably a devout Zoroastrian. :wink:

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:55 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:05 am
So please don't give me that crap that atheists have LESS compassion in their hearts than Christians. Look at the bloody records, for crying out loud, and please look at them without a biassed pre-judged view, trying to prove something you so desperately but without success are trying to prove. Look at the records, and THEN draw your conclusion, and not the other way around, please.
Like the rest of us, you will be driven to Roverland too :lol:

I'm not even atheist but I too am apparently morally bereft due to my lack of belief in bloodthirsty ancient middle eastern mythology.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 pm
As an Atheist, if you were one, there would be no reason you owe anybody the same as you get. Who says?
I say.

They might "bind" you, but do they "bind" anybody else? If they don't, then they're just your personal preference. You happen to be a nice guy, maybe; but there's no reason in that fact that anybody else has to be.
No, I can't make anyone else adopt my principles, luckily, I'm not the only person that has any.
...Furthermore, as I undeniably do exist and God most probably does not...
What has made this "probable" to you?
The existence of a phenomenon as significant as God, it seems to me, would be accompanied by a significant amount of evidence of the existence. I've never seen any evidence so it seems reasonable to conclude that probability of this particular existence is very low.
Well I believe they've abandoned the practice of hunting down witches to burn and -at least part of- the Christian establishment has changed its attitude towards homosexuality.
The Christian moral position on these is abundantly clear, and has always been. But that perfidious human nature of ours...some people do what God commands, and some fail to do so, and some do things not commanded...even invoking the name of God to back them in that.

That's not a fault of the morality, and certainly not of God. It's just further evidence of the perfidy of human nature, and the remoteness that capitulating to human nature will ever produce the ideal state. Meanwhile, nothing about the moral truth has changed there. If witchcraft or homosexuality were morally right, they would always have been so, regardless of people's practices with regard to them; and if they were not, then no amount of modern accommodation can ever make them moral. They are as they are.
Some Christian authorities have changed their attitude towards these things, you cannot deny this. Therefore, when I say Christianity has "chopped and changed" I do not see how you can deny that. Perhaps you just meant your Christian attitude, as you seem to think that anything that is not in complete accordance with it has no right to call itself Christian.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:38 pm
You're right. Being a privileged functionary of the Soviet state, he's probably a devout Zoroastrian. :wink:
It's just a picture of a man with a gun in his hand standing over another man lying on the ground. You cannot infer with any certainty what the situation is.

Dubious
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Dubious » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:22 pm
Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:43 pm
Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.
What sort of argument is this? This is just a hypothetical scenario off the top of your head tailored to fit the bogus point you are trying to make.
"Welcome to the Atheist State. We've reserved your room."
No doubt as a firm believer you would have enjoyed these methodologies of faith & moral persuasion from not too long ago.

Image

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:20 pm
The existence of a phenomenon as significant as God, it seems to me, would be accompanied by a significant amount of evidence of the existence. I've never seen any evidence so it seems reasonable to conclude that probability of this particular existence is very low.
I've never seen any evidence of Latvia. I've never met a Latvian. I have never seen a Latvian export. I have only heard that some simpletons believe a place called "Latvia" exists. But if it did, it seems to me it would be accompanied by a significant amount of evidence. I've never seen any evidence, so I conclude Latvia does not exist.

Any problems with my logic? :wink:
Some Christian authorities have changed their attitude towards these things, you cannot deny this.
Actually, I can.

After all, there is but one genuine Christian "Authority." And He has never changed his mind.

All others are irrelevant, except to the degree that they may agree with the one genuine Authority there is; in which case, their pronouncements are not authoritative, but merely redundant. And if they do not agree with the Authority, then they are just wrong, and have no business saying what they say.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:34 pm

Dubious wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm

No doubt as a firm believer you would have enjoyed these methodologies of faith & moral persuasion from not too long ago.
Do feel free to talk to the Catholics about that.

I've had the same question for a very long time: how can you have allowed anyone to do that when your only legitimate Authority forbade it? However, if an Atheist did it, it wouldn't even be considered "wrong" by the ontological suppositions of Atheism.

So we can't ask them.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:35 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:26 pm
You cannot infer with any certainty what the situation is.
Name the Atheistic state that did NOT do this...and worse.

Dubious
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Dubious » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:34 pm
Dubious wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm

No doubt as a firm believer you would have enjoyed these methodologies of faith & moral persuasion from not too long ago.
Do feel free to talk to the Catholics about that.

I've had the same question for a very long time: how can you have allowed anyone to do that when your only legitimate Authority forbade it? However, if an Atheist did it, it wouldn't even be considered "wrong" by the ontological suppositions of Atheism.

So we can't ask them.
...but it wasn't the atheist who did that. It was done by those who believe in god doing god's work. It wasn't even considered wrong but justified by those who believe as you do obviously on a crusade against atheists. So why would you object to this, mandated by the ontological suppositions of Theism?

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm
I've never seen any evidence of Latvia. I've never met a Latvian. I have never seen a Latvian export. I have only heard that some simpletons believe a place called "Latvia" exists. But if it did, it seems to me it would be accompanied by a significant amount of evidence. I've never seen any evidence, so I conclude Latvia does not exist.

Any problems with my logic? :wink:
Yes, my father was Latvian so if Latvia didn't exist neither would I, which would then leave you to try and explain the existence of my posts.
Some Christian authorities have changed their attitude towards these things, you cannot deny this.
Actually, I can.
Okay, I'll rephrase it: You cannot legitimately deny it.
After all, there is but one genuine Christian "Authority." And He has never changed his mind.

All others are irrelevant, except to the degree that they may agree with the one genuine Authority there is; in which case, their pronouncements are not authoritative, but merely redundant. And if they do not agree with the Authority, then they are just wrong, and have no business saying what they say.
You seem to be attempting to pass your opinion off as fact.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The friendly atheist... not everyone is a barking dog

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:19 pm

Dubious wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:34 pm
Dubious wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:31 pm

No doubt as a firm believer you would have enjoyed these methodologies of faith & moral persuasion from not too long ago.
Do feel free to talk to the Catholics about that.

I've had the same question for a very long time: how can you have allowed anyone to do that when your only legitimate Authority forbade it? However, if an Atheist did it, it wouldn't even be considered "wrong" by the ontological suppositions of Atheism.

So we can't ask them.
...but it wasn't the atheist who did that. It was done by those who believe in god doing god's work. It wasn't even considered wrong but justified by those who believe as you do obviously on a crusade against atheists. So why would you object to this, mandated by the ontological suppositions of Theism?
Because "Theism" isn't actually a single thing, but a cluster of different beliefs. They have in common only the belief that there is A God, but not what His nature and will are.

Allah is not God. Nor is the "god" of the Inquisition. They are what we call "false gods," wrong versions of who God is, with wrong understandings of what He requires. Some of them are just as wrong as Atheism is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests