Riddle me this Athiests...

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
In response to the OP's original question about textbooks I give you:

Stenger, V. J. (2008), God the Failed Hypothesis - How Science Shows that God does not Exist, New York, Prometheus Books.

Sadly, with a title like that, it is evidently a book of no logic.
What the author meant was ''I've defined God, and then from my own constructed definition, proved that my own definition of God doesn't exist''.

Actually it takes the definition of god used by the three major judaeo-christian religions and applies logic and scientific method to the descriptions and attributes applied to god.

The hypothesis is based on scripture, the method and the proof is based on simple science.

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
Actually it takes the definition of god used by the three major judaeo-christian religions and applies logic and scientific method to the descriptions and attributes applied to god.

The hypothesis is based on scripture, the method and the proof is based on simple science.

Precisely. It constructs three different defintions of God, and then ( by it's title ) claims to offer an argument against God. Not exactly a logical or rationally sound book, I would think.

Also, that opinionated comment from Richard Dawkins in your signature is far from logically or rationally sound.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Also, that opinionated comment from Richard Dawkins in your signature is far from logically or rationally sound.

Indeed, one of the world's top evolutionary biologists is neither logical nor rational.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by idmonster
See the crusades, the inquisition, jihads, witch hunts, murder of other human beings who do a job you dont like or live a life style that you disagree with. (abortionists and homosexuals spring to mind).

Its a catch 22 situation for us. sit back and watch ignorant religious bigotry destroy the world, or remove god and release the lunatics from the only thing that seems to be holding them back.

Once again, what's the difference between people killing in the name of God and people killing in the name of their non-religious political ideology ( such as Pol Pot ).
Atheists who use this line of argument are intellectually dishonest.
How on earth is it wrong to kill someone in the name of your God, but not so bad to kill someone because they do believe in God ?

Non whatsoever, they are the same. I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Killing somebody in the name of a god is as bad as killing people in the name of a political ideology. and the only people who start wars against believers of a god, are those who believes in a different god, or ridiculously even the same god (prothelics and cathestants for example)

As for ''life style you disagree with'', well you are the other side of that coin; you disagree with the lifestyle of those are against homosexuality or abortion.

Thats a huge assumption for you to make. You have every right not to agree with the homosexual life style, I personaly have no intention of making it my lifestyle choice but neither would I stone somebody to death if they do so. you also have every right to your opinions on abortion. But you have no right to attempt to enforce your belief on the people in the position of having to make that choice.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Indeed, one of the world's top evolutionary biologists is neither logical nor rational.

Argument from authority. You are providing me with quite a collection today; I think that's 4. Let's see: ignorance, personal incredulity, authority... No sorry, it's 3.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by idmonster
Non whatsoever, they are the same. I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Killing somebody in the name of a god is as bad as killing people in the name of a political ideology. and the only people who start wars against believers of a god, are those who believes in a different god, or ridiculously even the same god (prothelics and cathestants for example)

The atheist Khmer Rouge went around torturing and killing people just beacuse they wer Buddhist, Muslim or Christian.
That's the point; what is the difference between that and someone killing people because of a different religious belief ?

People kill in the name of God, politics, race, class, gender and even because someone supports a different football team.
A logical conclusion to draw is that humans kill those that are different to them; any excuse they use to justify killing is just that - an excuse.

Originally posted by idmonster
Thats a huge assumption for you to make. You have every right not to agree with the homosexual life style, I personaly have no intention of making it my lifestyle choice but neither would I stone somebody to death if they do so. you also have every right to your opinions on abortion. But you have no right to attempt to enforce your belief on the people in the position of having to make that choice.

I have no issue with gay people; I consider someone's sexuality to be pretty irrelevant. I don't have strong views about abortion.

What I'm saying is that forcing an anti-homosexual view on someone who is pro-homosexual is the same as someone forcing their pro-homosexual views on someone that is anti-homosexual.

There are two sides to every coin.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by idmonster
I think all of us who are happy to call ourselves atheist should be glad that religious people believe there is a god. My reasoning is as follows:

I am accountable for my actions. I understand the consequences if i do wrong and i accept the plaudits when i do well. God does not enter into the equation.

You are only accountable for your actions if you self-impose the arbitrary, human concept of self-accountability.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. Or are you saying that I am not accountable for my actions?

Atheism doesn't beget responsibility or accountability, it's your own choice and not entirely logical.

I didn't say it did. I said god or( lack of), didn't enter into the equation. There are people of all religions (and lack of religions), with a range of political and social beliefs who refuse to accept responsibility for there actions. some who don't event realise that their actions have consequences.

Worse still their are some who use religion to devolve themselves of responsibility and it is these specifically who I accuse. Warriors of god who believe that killing homosexuals or abortionists is OK because its "gods will". They honestly believe that the decision to commit murder was not theirs. Or if you are a christian think about the jihadist. They truly believe they are in a holy war against the infidel, and that that makes it perfectly OK to fly a plane into a skyscraper.

And believe me, you are the same. The jihadist in the plane is no different to the anti abortionist with a gun. You both attempt terror tactics to force everybody else to your specific religious (not political or economic) views.

Conspiracy Chicks Fan, please read the word "you" in the above post to be generic. I do not mean you specifically---unless you fall into the description above, in which case I mean precisely you.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by idmonster
Non whatsoever, they are the same. I dont understand the point you are trying to make. Killing somebody in the name of a god is as bad as killing people in the name of a political ideology. and the only people who start wars against believers of a god, are those who believes in a different god, or ridiculously even the same god (prothelics and cathestants for example)

The atheist Khmer Rouge went around torturing and killing people just beacuse they wer Buddhist, Muslim or Christian.
That's the point; what is the difference between that and someone killing people because of a different religious belief ?

People kill in the name of God, politics, race, class, gender and even because someone supports a different football team.
A logical conclusion to draw is that humans kill those that are different to them; any excuse they use to justify killing is just that - an excuse.

Originally posted by idmonster
Thats a huge assumption for you to make. You have every right not to agree with the homosexual life style, I personaly have no intention of making it my lifestyle choice but neither would I stone somebody to death if they do so. you also have every right to your opinions on abortion. But you have no right to attempt to enforce your belief on the people in the position of having to make that choice.

I have no issue with gay people; I consider someone's sexuality to be pretty irrelevant. I don't have strong views about abortion.

What I'm saying is that forcing an anti-homosexual view on someone who is pro-homosexual is the same as someone forcing their pro-homosexual views on someone that is anti-homosexual.

There are two sides to every coin.

Excellent, So we two are in agreement, a live and let live philosophy.

Unfortunately for us both extremist fundamentalist of many persuasions do not agree with us and will use the tactics outlined in my previous posts to terrorise everybody else into their mind-set.

As for the Khmer Rouge, the ideology there was communism and not atheism. The genocide was totally indiscriminate, people were not killed because they held religious beliefs, the were killed despite having religious beliefs.

Stalin killed and was most likely an atheist, but he didn't kill because he was an atheist. Like the Khmer Rouge the mass slaughter he perpetrated was politically led
Hitler killed and was a christian, and singled out the Jews using his christian faith as part of his justification. He used christian scripture to convince most of germany to go along with his deplorable actions.

We quite literally could make huge list of who did what to who and what their theistic beliefs were and the only conclusion will be that people do bad things and good things, sometime because of the beliefs, sometimes despite their beliefs. But the list of those who use their beliefs to justify their actions will be extremely short on the atheist side.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Indeed, one of the world's top evolutionary biologists is neither logical nor rational.

Argument from authority. You are providing me with quite a collection today; I think that's 4. Let's see: ignorance, personal incredulity, authority... No sorry, it's 3.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Ahh yes, the argument from avoiding personal responsibility again I see.

Let's see. Dawkins is illogical and irrational for his statement, yet you find it logical and rational to hold open the possibility of 14 mile high human beings.

Well then, I think we've established something today.

reply to post by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
You know what else doesn't require logic? Believing in a being that has no evidence of existing, then trying to prove it exists desipte the fact that you've acknowledged the lack of evidence by saying that your beliefs are faith driven. This wasn't directed towards you; However, you think morals only come with god (yet you're agnostic, with morals), and that 14 mile humans are logically sound, so you're just as bad.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by technical difficulties]

Originally posted by idmonster
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Or are you saying that I am not accountable for my actions?

You are accountable for your actions if you choose to be. You are accountable for some of your actions under the eyes of the law, but that has nothing to do with morality.

Originally posted by idmonster
Worse still their are some who use religion to devolve themselves of responsibility and it is these specifically who I accuse. Warriors of god who believe that killing homosexuals or abortionists is OK because its "gods will". They honestly believe that the decision to commit murder was not theirs. Or if you are a christian think about the jihadist. They truly believe they are in a holy war against the infidel, and that that makes it perfectly OK to fly a plane into a skyscraper.

It's true that many religious fanatics use their faith to justify committing heinous acts, but so do both religious and non-religious people on a day-by-day basis.

My point is that following a religion doesn't make anyone more or less likely to behave irresponsibly or unaccountably - so to single out religion as a cause for the world's problems seems irrelevant and disingenuous to me, when the actual problem stems from human nature and evolution.

We have a preponderance to form a group mentality and to become intolerant and willing to harm a group of people that are different to us - whether that be a physical, religious or ideological difference.

That's why I give the example of the atheist Khmer Rouge killing people who were religious.
You can see that their actions, like actions of religious extremists, were caused by intolerance and anger that another group of people didn't share their views. Religion, I believe, is not that relevant, because you see exactly the same modus operandi of killing, cruelty and domination in any human conflict, regardless of whether there's a religion element or not.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
That's why I give the example of the atheist Khmer Rouge killing people who were religious.

Hitler was a vegetarian who killed religious jews. Why not give examples of the dangers of vegetarianism?

Originally posted by idmonster
As for the Khmer Rouge, the ideology there was communism and not atheism. The genocide was totally indiscriminate, people were not killed because they held religious beliefs, the were killed despite having religious beliefs.

It's true that the Khmer Rouge did kill many groups of people, but religious people were specifically targeted because they followed religion; for example, they forced Muslims to eat pork, and if they refused, they would kill them.
While the Khmer Rouge had a broad group of people that they killed for various reasons, religious people were being killed specifically because they followed a religion.

Originally posted by idmonster
Stalin killed and was most likely an atheist, but he didn't kill because he was an atheist. Like the Khmer Rouge the mass slaughter he perpetrated was politically led
Hitler killed and was a christian, and singled out the Jews using his christian faith as part of his justification. He used christian scripture to convince most of germany to go along with his deplorable actions.

One of the tenets of communism is irreligiosity, so it's an arguable point as to whether the lack of belief in a deity had a contributable effect on actions under the name of communism.
Albania was actually declared an atheist state with churches and mosques closed in the 1970s, and many of these ex-communist countries had a strong approach to anything religious.

All that being said, whether the atheism that goes hand-in-hand with communism was partially responsible for many of the atrocities carried out by these regimes, is somewhat moot, and doesn't alter the main point, which is the fact that many non-religious communist regimes killed millions.

If we ignore the atheist slant of communism, then you can still see that these millions were killed because of a political ideology. Should one therefore say; ''look at all the problems politics causes us?'', should we not tar you and me with the same brush ? I have political beliefs, I'm sure you do too, so why should we persevere with them when we've seen all the troubles caused by politics in this world ?

Of course, to suggest that we should not hold political views or can be in some way lumped in with people that have committed atrocities because of their political beliefs, is unfair and absurd.

Yet, this very same argument is used by anti-religious people about religions.

Originally posted by idmonster
But the list of those who use their beliefs to justify their actions will be extremely short on the atheist side.

That's a slightly unfair point, as currently and throughout history, the overwhelming majority of people have been religious, so consequently the vast majority of things good and bad, will have been carried out by religious people.
As I've already said, the widespread atrocities committed by states with an atheist philosophy doesn't exactly bode well for any hope that there would be any difference in the modus operandi of religious/non-religious regimes.

There's also the fact that it's very hard to prove what impact someone's atheist viewpoint may have had on their crimes - and it's very hard to know in an individual case what views and beliefs have a contributory factor toward someone committing a crime.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Ahh yes, the argument from avoiding personal responsibility again I see.

Let's see. Dawkins is illogical and irrational for his statement, yet you find it logical and rational to hold open the possibility of 14 mile high human beings.

Well then, I think we've established something today.

Come off it !
You know it's not logically sound to use someone's position or perceived authority to justify their views on a largely unrelated matter.
When eminent biologist James Watson said that he thought black people weren't as intelligent as whites, does that make his statement more rational or logical, because he's a Nobel prize winning scientist ? Of course not.

You have yet to show me why it's not possible for a 14-mile-high to exist.

You have demonstrably shown that your reasoning is not logically sound on the issues that we have debated.

You have formed a certitude on the non-existence of God because of a perceived lack of evidence ( argument from ignorance ).

You say you find it absurd that I would not rule out the existence of the Easter Bunny ( argument from personal incredulity ).

I have pointed out why forming a certitude on something's non-existence is illogical, because the very nature of science is discovering new unrecorded, undocumented phenomena that, by definition, didn't empirically exist until they were proven.

Your certitudes are proved wrong on a weekly basis by new scientific discoveries, which is a perfect example of why it's logically unsound to form a certitude of something's non-existence.

This is why agnosticism is by far the most logical view to adopt.
Once someone starts disbelieving in something that there is no empirical evidence for one way or another, then they are letting their personal views and beliefs creep in, and therefore straying away from logic.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by technical difficulties

 

You know what else doesn't require logic? Believing in a being that has no evidence of existing, then trying to prove it exists desipte the fact that you've acknowledged the lack of evidence by saying that your beliefs are faith driven.

I think most people's beliefs in God is faith based. While some may try and prove God with evidence, I think they are mostly using that evidence to justify why they adopted that outlook.

I personally believe it's impossible to prove that God does or doesn't exist empirically. But then that's just my personal opinion.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Hitler was a vegetarian who killed religious jews. Why not give examples of the dangers of vegetarianism?

Sorry to quote you from another thread, but:

bad analogy.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Ahh yes, the argument from avoiding personal responsibility again I see.

Let's see. Dawkins is illogical and irrational for his statement, yet you find it logical and rational to hold open the possibility of 14 mile high human beings.

Well then, I think we've established something today.

Come off it !
You know it's not logically sound to use someone's position or perceived authority to justify their views on a largely unrelated matter.

Likewise, it's not logical to use/misuse various definitions of logical fallacies to give yourself the free pass for an anything goes philosophy just to validate your agnosticism. And this redefines my stance that agnosticism is the least logical position.

Perhaps not so ironically, you've employed the same "prove me wrong" argument in the 14 mile high human metaphor as would any religious person demanding to be proven wrong about their belief in god(s). Proving a negative is nobody's burden. With all due respect, your various defenses in your argument amount to different forms of circular reasoning, again redefining the dearth of logic exhibited in agnosticism.

Conspiracy Chicks fan !

It's true that the Khmer Rouge did kill many groups of people, but religious people were specifically targeted because they followed religion; for example, they forced Muslims to eat pork, and if they refused, they would kill them.

They were also specifically targeted for being intellectual

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
religious people were being killed specifically because they followed a religion.

and killed for being specifically intellectual

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
One of the tenets of communism is irreligiosity, so it's an arguable point as to whether the lack of belief in a deity had a contributable effect on actions under the name of communism.

A ridiculous statement which if true would be equally as true of those with a religious belief. In fact even more so as people often proclaim to have killed in the name of religion. I would love to see your evidence of somebody proclaiming to have killed in the name of atheism. i am aware that you will again attempt to link communism and atheism but remember, those that killed for communist ideals did it for exactly that, communism not atheism.

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
If we ignore the atheist slant of communism, then you can still see that these millions were killed because of a political ideology.

Of course, to suggest that we should not hold political views or can be in some way lumped in with people that have committed atrocities because of their political beliefs, is unfair and absurd.

Is it? What is the general feeling in the democratic free world of communism? What kind of reception do you think I would get if I attempted to sell the communist ideal to (choose your state!). Do you think I would be "lumped in" with the communism of the past?

idmonster
But the list of those who use their beliefs to justify their actions will be extremely short on the atheist side.

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
That's a slightly unfair point, as currently and throughout history, the overwhelming majority of people have been religious, so consequently the vast majority of things good and bad, will have been carried out by religious people.

Its not unfair and you are slightly meandering from the point. I am fully aware of the numbers involved, the point is those bad and good things being done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Not by people with a religious belief, but specifically for a religious cause.

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
As I've already said, the widespread atrocities committed by states with an atheist philosophy doesn't exactly bode well for any hope that there would be any difference in the modus operandi of religious/non-religious regimes.

What states? What atrocities? Please be specific and link me to those states that commit these atrocities in the name of atheism.

Conspiracy Chicks fan !
There's also the fact that it's very hard to prove what impact someone's atheist viewpoint may have had on their crimes - and it's very hard to know in an individual case what views and beliefs have a contributory factor toward someone committing a crime.

Not only hard to prove, I should think nigh on impossible. Atheism is a lack of belief and you do not commit a crime for a lack of a cause. If an individual commits a crime and they turn out to be an atheist, it is highly improbable that they would use their atheism as a justification. An individual is no more or less likely to commit a crime because they are an atheist than a person with religious beliefs. But they are infinitely less likely to use their at

[edit on 28-5-2010 by idmonster]

Gods existence can not be proved or disproved. One can not make a definitive argument for either one. Those of us who believe in God, began our belief with faith. Those of us who do not believe in God, have chosen not to accept that faith. Either way, his existence can not be scientifically proved nor disproved.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that God doesn't exist. Can I say that with scientific certainty, no. Because to do so would require a knowledge that none of us possess. For in order to prove that God doesn't exist, we would have to be able to see past the universe. And I don't know of any telescope that can do that.

Again, for the sake of argument, lets say that God does exist. Can I say that with scientific certainty, no. How can the created know more than the creator?

When new synthetic life is created in the laboratory, does that microbial life know more than the scientists who created it?......... of course not. No more than we would possibly be able to know more than God.

Imagine that the universe is part of an infinite number of universes. Then,
lets imagine that each of those universes are test tubes in Gods laboratory. Can I say that its true? No. Can I say that its not true? No.

I'm just glad that Einstein had the obsession with learning the "the mind of God". Because if he didn't, we'd still be in the dark ages.

I'll enter into a contract with all atheists: I won't try to save you, if you don't try to save me.