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

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
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 11:25 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:07 pm
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.
Well, then...it seems that to dismiss a belief simply on the basis of my own lack of experience would be completely irrational, no?
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.
Then it's wrong. I can. These are not "authorities." If you think they are, show me where the Bible says they are. (Hint: it's not there.)
You seem to be attempting to pass your opinion off as fact.
I am not the Authority. My mere opinion matters not at all. There is, analytically, one one candidate for Supreme Being. It's not me.

However, if the view I am expressing happens also to be His, that would turn out to be quite a different situation. Though I would not be the Authority of that viewpoint, I would be speaking or acting in concert with the decisively Authoritative viewpoint. Then my opinion would count; but not because of me.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:25 pm

Well, then...it seems that to dismiss a belief simply on the basis of my own lack of experience would be completely irrational, no?
I must say that I feel a little insulted that you obviously think I would be incapable of explaining why having a belief in Latvia is not comparable to having a belief in God. Even so, I really do hope I don't find myself in the position of feeling compelled to go to the bother of having to explain. Particularly so as we both know it isn't necessary.
Then it's wrong. I can. These are not "authorities." If you think they are, show me where the Bible says they are. (Hint: it's not there.)
It wouldn't matter to me if it was there, I don't consider the Bible to be an authority on anything. I do know that the Church of England has changed it's stance on homosexuality. I also know that the Church of England is considered, by it's members if not by you, to be a Christian authority.
I am not the Authority. My mere opinion matters not at all. There is, analytically, one one candidate for Supreme Being. It's not me.
Well unless the Supreme Being makes a post and settles the matter conclusively it would seem we are merely speculating.
However, if the view I am expressing happens also to be His, that would turn out to be quite a different situation.
Well we don't know if your views coincide do we? I suggest we put this to one side pending confirmation from head office.

Anyway, I know they say you should never let the sun set on an argument but I'm going to bed.

Dubious
Posts: 1715
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

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

Post by Dubious » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
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

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.
If the only necessity for a theist is to believe there is a A God then why ascribe all the moralist paraphernalia if you cannot know what his nature or will are? How does everything you believe about morality follow from that?

When you say "Theism" isn't actually a single thing, but a cluster of different beliefs", I can well believe that having read and spoken to theists who are nothing like you. I've also encountered atheists I would avoid at all costs. If theism isn't a single thing then neither is atheism just because it subtracts god from its world view. Obviously this little fact won't prevent you from desperately striving - even employing the most mind-blowing absurdities - to make atheism into some monolithic abstraction of evil while theism remains pure in heart.

Your simplistic dichotomies between theism and atheism, as between Good & Evil, makes me think your unique brand of theism is encapsulated in the much earlier edicts of Zoroastrianism.

The picture you posted again proves that since you cannot possibly know what the shooter believed or whether he went to Mass that morning, you still try your utmost to make atheism responsible for every such event. Such views are mentally diseased! Instead of atheist, he may have considered himself one of God's functionaries for all we know!

Yours is a perfect example of how desperation preempts both logic and common sense. As in the medieval glory days, you're ready to enforce a conclusion without knowing the facts...an old and honored specialty of theism!

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

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

Post by Necromancer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:58 am

Under the premise that Atheists, especially in Europe, hate guns and of course have no (particular) moral code, we get this:
(At least for suicides)

It's stated that "Approximately one-half of suicides are committed by firearm, accounting for two-thirds of all firearms deaths. [21,334 of 33,599 in 2014]"[24-reference]
Those are decent suicides! In Europe we do all sorts of crazy things in order to (finally) die because either it's the corrupt authorities hunting the suicide candidates only to get more torture on them. A corruption we in Europe usually never can do anything about because the self-protection is outlawed, that is, guns, pepperspray, tazers and killer knives. And that's after the 20 times the suicide candidates "bounce" about before they die!

"The same article [USA Today] stated that there are far fewer homicides than suicides in the country; in fact, homicide rates have fallen by half in the U.S. since 1991."
So homicides are bad, but the numbers are improving and the victims have gotten the death by gun shot, not tortured a few times first as in Europe.

For the instances of torture in Europe, pick out the stats for murders, missing people and a good portion of the suicides who "failed" to die when tortured!

At spot no. 48 USA comes in with 12.6 per 100 000 people.
At spot no. 102 Norway comes in with 9.3 per 100 K people.
Hurray! At spot no. 123 United Kingdom comes in with 7.4 per 100 K people.
Now, from the above and given Europe's tendency to sodomy, corruption and lying for the facade, also for protection (because a wounded prey in Europe usually gets "taken" quickly).

You know, I happen to think that USA takes it (accepts the deaths, some also "beautiful"), all factors considered! (Don't say you're young, please, because then you have quite a bit of learning to do!)

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i ... ted_States

Some additional:
Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."

"Good?" 8)

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

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

Post by Greta » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 am

Those who lack empathy can sometimes gravitate to religions because the rules provide the kind of boundaries that can help them avoid trouble in life. Hence all the converted (and active) criminals. In giving psychopaths the chance to lead a reasonable life and minimise the harm they cause, religions have long performed an important function. Now, alas, their toxic elements are coming to the fore - the inmates are taking over the asylum.

This is why some (a minority, to be fair) Christians and Muslims claim that secular thinkers lack morals. When a theist claims that atheists lack morals you know you are talking with someone who themselves lacks normal empathy. So they assume that those without religion would be as amoral as they themselves would be without it.

Basically, they cannot comprehend empathy so they dismiss its importance in shaping and refining morality. To them, empathy is meaningless.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:27 pm

Image

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:41 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:25 pm

Well, then...it seems that to dismiss a belief simply on the basis of my own lack of experience would be completely irrational, no?
I must say that I feel a little insulted that you obviously think I would be incapable of explaining why having a belief in Latvia is not comparable to having a belief in God. Even so, I really do hope I don't find myself in the position of feeling compelled to go to the bother of having to explain. Particularly so as we both know it isn't necessary.
I have no intention to insult you.

But the point has got to be fairly clear by now. Regardless of content, the mechanics of belief-formation are not well-chosen if they involve the deduction, "I haven't seen" to "therefore it doesn't exist."

And really, it doesn't matter to mechanics whether the subject is God or Latvia. In this case, fallacious reasoning is still fallacious reasoning, n'est ce pas?
Then it's wrong. I can. These are not "authorities." If you think they are, show me where the Bible says they are. (Hint: it's not there.)
It wouldn't matter to me if it was there, I don't consider the Bible to be an authority on anything. I do know that the Church of England has changed it's stance on homosexuality. I also know that the Church of England is considered, by it's members if not by you, to be a Christian authority.

Not by me. And not by the Bible. If you try to look up "C of E" in the Bible, you won't find it there either.

But I was not implying I thought you considered the Bible to be an authority. I was merely pointing out that, for a Christian, it has to be the ultimate authority. Or to be more precise, the One behind the Bible has to be the ultimate Authority. Human upstarts of any kind, who, without warrant, decide to interpose themselves into that dynamic are of no authoritative merit in determining -- not what you believe, but what Christians believe. For that was the subject of our conversation, was it not?
I am not the Authority. My mere opinion matters not at all. There is, analytically, one one candidate for Supreme Being. It's not me.
Well unless the Supreme Being makes a post and settles the matter conclusively it would seem we are merely speculating.
If by "post" you mean "word," then I'd say "Done."
However, if the view I am expressing happens also to be His, that would turn out to be quite a different situation.
Well we don't know if your views coincide do we? I suggest we put this to one side pending confirmation from head office.
I would just say that we should judge and dismiss or affirm on the basis of what Head Office says.
Anyway, I know they say you should never let the sun set on an argument but I'm going to bed.
:D It actually says, "...on your anger." But if one were angry when arguing, it could apply. I trust that's not us -- and certainly, it's not my mood, nor do I see it to be yours -- so I think you can go to bed in perfect conscience.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:49 pm

Dubious wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:27 am
If the only necessity for a theist is to believe there is a A God then why ascribe all the moralist paraphernalia if you cannot know what his nature or will are? How does everything you believe about morality follow from that?
You can know what His will and nature are. Even you would have to concede that, if one thing had happened....

If God had spoken.

Now, I say He has, and you say He hasn't, because you have already decided to believe He doesn't exist. We maybe can't agree on that point at the moment. But even you would have to concede that IF there were a God, and IF He had spoken, the objection would simply disappear.
The picture you posted again proves that since you cannot possibly know what the shooter believed
I'm not concerned. Harbal just said he thought that what I had said had never happened. I think you can see that it had...and not just once, if you know about Soviet, Maoist or National Socialist histories, but many, many times in the 20th Century.

In fact, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:22 pm

Dubious wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:27 am
The picture you posted again proves that since you cannot possibly know what the shooter believed or whether he went to Mass that morning,...
You know what's really, really funny to me about the way Atheists argue?

300 years ago the Puritans killed 20 people by hanging. And this was in an age with little journalism or scholarship, no internet, and not even the technology of photography. But not only can modern Atheists remember the massacre in detail, they can 'find' the specific bodies. They know who the victims were, what was done to them (hanging), and why. And they feel perfectly justified in they feel perfectly righteous to rub the faces of -- not just the Puritans, but of any Theist of any tradition, anytime -- in the dried blood of the victims.

"Yeah?" they say, "What about the witches, eh?"

Meanwhile, in the age of the photograph, modern journalism, and the internet, they cannot find the bodies of 148 million dead by the hands of their fellow Atheists.

Just lost them all. Can't find a one. :D

Now, you say, that I "cannot possibly know" what even this one little Soviet shooter believed, or even that maybe he wasn't a wayward Catholic who "went to Mass that morning." And you have knowledge of absolutely nothing of any of the massacres done by any of the many Atheist regimes who did these things.

How extraordinary! You can find 20, and at the same time, lose 148 million.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:41 pm
And really, it doesn't matter to mechanics whether the subject is God or Latvia. In this case, fallacious reasoning is still fallacious reasoning, n'est ce pas?
Assuming someone mentioned Latvia to me and assuming I'd not previously heard of it and assuming I cared whether or not it existed:

Firstly, I could look for it on a map. If, having found it, I was still not convinced, I could look on a different map and carry on doing this until I was satisfied that there was enough of a consensus regarding its existence to give some weight to the proposition. If I still remained sceptical, I would probably ask myself what else might be occupying that Latvia shaped space between Lithuania and Estonia. There must be something there, even if it turns out not to be Latvia. I suppose you could pull in the borders of all the adjacent countries until the bogus Latvia disappeared altogether and conclude a conspiracy among all map publishers is responsible for the deception but I don't think I would resort to that way of thinking at this point.
Next, I could go on Google or even look in books for pictures of Latvia and check if there was consistency between them. I could look for evidence of the Latvian language, if such a language exists it should be possible to find people who can speak it, if I'm lucky they may actually be Latvians, or at least claim to be. If so, I could compare their accounts of what it is like in Latvia. If after all this I was still not convinced, I could check if it were possible to book a flight to Latvia and, if so, buy a ticket and take it on trust that I wasn't going to be flown into some kind of void from whence there is no return. If my trust turns out to be justified and we land on terra firma and there is a big sign saying WELCOME TO LATVIA and everyone seems to be speaking a language that sounds very much like the one I've previously researched and after a week's stay I haven't come across anything to suggest this so called Latvia is an imposter, I'm going to take a leap of faith and believe in it.
Now perhaps you would like to explain why I should believe someone that tells me God exists.
Not by me. And not by the Bible. If you try to look up "C of E" in the Bible, you won't find it there either.
I anticipate a great deal of disappointment within the Cof E when they find out they're not Christians.
I was merely pointing out that, for a Christian, it has to be the ultimate authority. Or to be more precise, the One behind the Bible has to be the ultimate Authority.
There are a lot of people in the World who call themselves Christians and I'm pretty sure they are not all in perfect agreement on the views of Christ. So, when you suggest that a Christian is a higher ranking moral agent than an atheist, exactly who are you allowing into the group, Christian. And what about the rest? Are they somewhere in between a bona fide Christian and an atheist?

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:22 pm
How extraordinary! You can find 20, and at the same time, lose 148 million.
Let me guess! You gleaned you latest silly nonsense (and glaring non sequitur) from Ian Stott, right? :lol:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:09 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:51 pm

Now perhaps you would like to explain why I should believe someone that tells me God exists.
Well, first and foremost, because the statement "I have not seen evidence" does not equate to "there IS no evidence." And secondly, because the statement "I don't know God," does not equate to "Nobody else does either." So you have insufficient reason to produce a denial.

But secondly, because the evidence is there to be investigated by anyone with a sincere desire to know it. And depending on the level of inquiry one wishes to undertake, it ranges from the very accessible, popular level to the most scholarly. It's all there to be investigated, for the satisfaction of the intellect.

But intellect won't do enough. At some point, you'll need a person experience with God. And that I cannot produce for you. He can, but I can't. And His willingness to do so is contingent on your willingness to have such an experience. As Christ said, "The one who has ears, let him hear." Not everybody has an ear to hear, even if they've got two. So you'll have to decide what you're willing to hear.
Not by me. And not by the Bible. If you try to look up "C of E" in the Bible, you won't find it there either.
I anticipate a great deal of disappointment within the Cof E when they find out they're not Christians.
Did I say that? Not here.

We were discussing authority, not identity. I said that C of E hierarchy and clergy do not have warrant from the Bible as "authorities." I neither said nor implied that no Christians attend the C of E. But you can see that, if you look back.
There are a lot of people in the World who call themselves Christians and I'm pretty sure they are not all in perfect agreement on the views of Christ.
Yes, of course. And Aristotle helps here. If they and I are in any true contradiction, then either they are right, or I am, or neither. But it is not rationally the case that both are right. There's no bigotry in saying so, since logic says it MUST be so.
So, when you suggest that a Christian is a higher ranking moral agent than an atheist,
I'm sorry...I do not recall when I raised an issue of "rank." Perhaps you'll point out to me when I did.
And what about the rest? Are they somewhere in between a bona fide Christian and an atheist?
Well, I am arguing for this definition: a "Christian" is a person who has a genuine relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. This person may know more or less, be more flawed or less, be struggling more or less...that's not the issue. The issue is, "Who is his Father"?

All other people who do not have such a relationship are not "ranked" at all, but in truth, are on exact par with every Atheist...for just as an Atheist has no relationship with God, so too such people, by the definition, would simply have to acknowledge that they also have no such relationship with God.

So there is no "in between," as you put it. There are those who are born again by the Spirit of God, and those who simply "cannot see the kingdom of God," just as Christ Himself said it would be.

It's never just about what you know...it's really about Who.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4322
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

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

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:31 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:00 pm
Let me guess! You gleaned you latest silly nonsense (and glaring non sequitur) from Ian Stott, right?
No, actually. From an entirely secular source. But let me put the question to you:

Just without knowing at all, how many people do YOU believe the Atheist ideologues of the last century might have killed?

Take a wild guess, for free. I won't insist you have to be right; I just want to see what you think.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:09 pm

Well, first and foremost, because the statement "I have not seen evidence" does not equate to "there IS no evidence."
No, but, as with the law, you cannot proceed without it.
And secondly, because the statement "I don't know God," does not equate to "Nobody else does either." So you have insufficient reason to produce a denial.
All I can say is that I have heard various arguments in favour of the existence of God and find none of them even slightly convincing. I'm not denying his existence, I'm merely saying that I'm not buying into it.
But secondly, because the evidence is there to be investigated by anyone with a sincere desire to know it. And depending on the level of inquiry one wishes to undertake, it ranges from the very accessible, popular level to the most scholarly. It's all there to be investigated, for the satisfaction of the intellect.
You seem to think a clever enough argument constitutes proof. Words written on paper proves nothing.
But intellect won't do enough. At some point, you'll need a person experience with God.
Then it seems a vital piece of evidence is missing.
And His willingness to do so is contingent on your willingness to have such an experience.
Well yes, I kind of knew that already, it's pretty obvious.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

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

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:31 pm
davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:00 pm
Let me guess! You gleaned you latest silly nonsense (and glaring non sequitur) from Ian Stott, right?
No, actually. From an entirely secular source. But let me put the question to you:

Just without knowing at all, how many people do YOU believe the Atheist ideologues of the last century might have killed?

Take a wild guess, for free. I won't insist you have to be right; I just want to see what you think.
Well, your “secular source” probably got it from Ian Stott, who claims that between 1917 and 2007, 52 atheists killed 148 million people! :lol:

Is this claim true? No, of course not; but suppose it were true. What would follow from that?

One thing we might ask is: Were these 52 atheists all really atheists?

Next, even if they were, did they kill 148 million people because they were atheists? Or for some other reason?

Then we would have to ask: Had they not been atheists, would they have refrained from killing these 148 million people?

We do know, of course, that throughout history, Christians and other theists have killed others in the name of religion; because the others were “infidels.” This continues today. Stott plays this down because the numbers killed by, say, the Spanish Inquisition were far smaller than those killed by the infamous alleged atheist 52. But of course the technological reach of events like the Inquisition and the Crusades was much smaller and more primitive than the mass-killing technology that existed in the 20th century and exists today. Graft today’s technology onto the Crusades and the Inquisition and the numbers slaughtered by theists in the name of theism would likely exceed 148 million.

Finally, though, all of this is irrelevant. The fact is, most atheists do not kill anyone. Thus the implied thesis that atheists are more likely to kill people is falsified.

But more: even if it were true that atheists were more likely to kill people, this fact (if it were true; it’s not) would have no bearing whatsoever on the truth claims of theism. Whether God exists or not is logically independent of the behavior of either theists or atheists.

Also, atheism is not an "ideology"; it's simply a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. You never seem to be able to get this somehow. Would you similarly say that the lack of belief in Santa -- "a-Santaism" -- is an "ideology"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests