Those condescending atheists

Started by marksch19, October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mountainshield

Quote from: American on March 05, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
Before I address what you said, I want to point out that you have not addressed the argument I made.

I am not close minded. I have argued with religious people and I have spent a lot time reading their arguments online, although this is the first time I have had an online debate about it. Right now I am very busy and, unfortunately, I do not have time to do additional reading assignments. But, if you present an argument in your post I will read it and respond, as I have so far.

I'm glad you find me to be polite (if that's what you're saying). I too do not care for the attitudes that many atheists have. I once had a (relatively respectful) back and forth debate with Michael Newdow in person in front of dozens of people. I thought he was making ridiculous assertions and I called him out for it.

I'm not a scientist and I'm not a theist. I am, however, schooled in philosophy and the crafts of argumentation, logic, and critical thinking. Some Christian beliefs are incredibly illogical and, in my experience, even many devout Christians will practically admit as much and always fall back on the "God works in mysterious ways" defense.

Well I fully respect your position now that I understand the context of your argument better. We seem to have misunderstanding and disagreement about premises that prevents us from reaching same conclusion or agreement.

You have to know the context about what you are debating, if you are refering to Genesis then yes without proper knowledge and understanding of how to interpret the Bible it will seem illogical and even ridiculous in some cases to an unbeliever. To fully comprehend the Bible you need to have a very good interpreter, wisdom and knowledgable, this is the problem with christianity today, lack of good Priests and Preachers, asking an imperfect human being to interpret word of God will lead to confusion and failure to understand. Like you said, "some christians will fall back too God works in mysterious ways" is a tribute to today lack of good priests/preachers. But I think you too would agree that failure to understand something is hardly an argument against it.

But you also have to be honest about what you are debating now. Intelligent Design, Biblical historical accuracy or a person experience of divine intervention. You can't sweep all topics under one argument in an all or nothing soundbyte debate, thats intellectually dishonest. And this is what happens in most debates.

Quote from: American on March 05, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
I don't disagree with that but multiverse theory cannot be proven or disproven because of the nature of the theory. But it makes sense and seems much more reasonable than the God explanation/theory, which "is a theory without any data whatsoever."

I'm sorry but I honestly have no clue what you mean and I don't think it is my fault that I have no clue what you mean.

Allow me to try and re-write this argument: (P1) The universe had a beginning; (P2) It follows necessarily that we have not always existed; (C) Therefore, our existence must have been caused by a force outside of time.

This argument gets us exactly nowhere because (1) the "force outside of time" need not be God and (2) the universe didn't need to be caused by anything if God didn't need to be caused by anything.

(1) I never said that the force/cause need to be the God of the bible, Intelligent design does not claim this. This is what I meant with my false accusation that you are not after understanding the opposition, because from this statement it is clear you don't know what intelligent design is. I understand that you may be busy with uni or work to take on additonal reading. There are some very good youtube videos of Craig, Myers and even some of Harun Yahya if you want to relax one day and try understand intelligent design.

(2) For something to begin it needs to have a cause. If you disagree with this premise then this is the end of our debate imo. If our basic premises are in contradiction then we can't debate the outcome, if we are to continue we need to settle this first and then move on.

I don't have everything memorized as what I'm telling you now is just what I remember from the books I have read, both Dawkin and Myers. I don't have all the time in world either due to work and wife, so I would recommend anyone interested in this topics to learn from the experts of both atheist and theist side and then make your own conclusion.

anti-American

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM
[W]ithout proper knowledge and understanding of how to interpret the Bible it will seem illogical and even ridiculous in some cases to an unbeliever. To fully comprehend the Bible you need to have a very good interpreter...,

Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them.

What are these logical holes? Where do I even begin? How about "The Holy Trinity," which consists of three separate entities that are simultaneously not separate entities kind of like the penalty in Obamacare which is simultaneously a tax and not a tax, according to Robert's ridiculous decision.

Catholics believe that what was once wine and unleavened bread is transformed into the literal blood and flesh of a guy that lived two thousand years ago because some guy (the priest) does some hand gestures and utters some words. It can't get sillier than that. And the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story is incredibly illogical. First of all, God, being all knowing, knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit and he designed and manufactured (for lack of better words) Adam and Eve, knowing that they would, by their very human nature that God is responsible for programming, disobey his commands. Yet he has a temper tantrum and acts all shocked that they would disobey him. And as a result of his ridiculous reaction, humans born thereafter have "original sin" because of the "sins" of Adam and Eve. That seems fair. But God wanted to forgive this "original sin" that he himself is ultimately to blame for existing in the first place. So he comes up with this convoluted, sadistic, and overly dramatic plot wherein he will forgive our "original sin" against him if we torture and murder his "son" (who is really God himself but not really). That's prima facie absurd if anything is. When I feel that someone has wronged me in some minor way, I don't tell them that I will forgive them if they nail me to a cross nor does any sane person. Yet God did just that.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMBut I think you too would agree that failure to understand something is hardly an argument against it.

We should be highly suspicious of a belief system with billions of adherents, when almost all of those adherents have little understanding of their actual faith.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMBut you also have to be honest about what you are debating now. Intelligent Design, Biblical historical accuracy or a person experience of divine intervention. You can't sweep all topics under one argument in an all or nothing soundbyte debate, thats intellectually dishonest. And this is what happens in most debates.

I am not doing this. "Religious experiences," as they are called, are one of the big reasons that people adhere to the Christian faith and believe in a sentient God. People who claim to have these "religious experiences" and, for no obvious reason, completely ignore that many human experiences don't reflect reality (e.g., dreams), do not base their adherence to Christianity on logic. I also agree that biblical accuracy and intelligent design are two separate debates.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM
(1) I never said that the force/cause need to be the God of the bible, Intelligent design does not claim this. This is what I meant with my false accusation that you are not after understanding the opposition, because from this statement it is clear you don't know what intelligent design is.

I don't think that the "force/cause" needs to be the biblical God. But, here's my question to you: does it need to be a sentient God with a personality? If not, then you agree with my that "God," as Western religions understand "him" to be, does not need to exist.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMI understand that you may be busy with uni or work to take on additonal reading. There are some very good youtube videos of Craig, Myers and even some of Harun Yahya if you want to relax one day and try understand intelligent design.

Thanks.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM(2) For something to begin it needs to have a cause. If you disagree with this premise then this is the end of our debate imo. If our basic premises are in contradiction then we can't debate the outcome, if we are to continue we need to settle this first and then move on.

If something needs to have a cause to begin, is it possible for something to exist that never came about? That seems to be an illogical premise. Something that exists must have come into existence otherwise it would not exist because it never would have existed. Just as something can't be in Kansas unless it went there, something cannot exist unless it came about.

Mountainshield

Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them. What are these logical holes? Where do I even begin? How about "The Holy Trinity," which consists of three separate entities that are simultaneously not separate entities kind of like the penalty in Obamacare which is simultaneously a tax and not a tax, according to Robert's ridiculous decision.

Catholics believe that what was once wine and unleavened bread is transformed into the literal blood and flesh of a guy that lived two thousand years ago because some guy (the priest) does some hand gestures and utters some words. It can't get sillier than that. And the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story is incredibly illogical. First of all, God, being all knowing, knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit and he designed and manufactured (for lack of better words) Adam and Eve, knowing that they would, by their very human nature that God is responsible for programming, disobey his commands. Yet he has a temper tantrum and acts all shocked that they would disobey him. And as a result of his ridiculous reaction, humans born thereafter have "original sin" because of the "sins" of Adam and Eve. That seems fair. But God wanted to forgive this "original sin" that he himself is ultimately to blame for existing in the first place. So he comes up with this convoluted, sadistic, and overly dramatic plot wherein he will forgive our "original sin" against him if we torture and murder his "son" (who is really God himself but not really). That's prima facie absurd if anything is. When I feel that someone has wronged me in some minor way, I don't tell them that I will forgive them if they nail me to a cross nor does any sane person. Yet God did just that.

We should be highly suspicious of a belief system with billions of adherents, when almost all of those adherents have little understanding of their actual faith.

I'm not Catholic and I agree to the theology of catholicism but I respect the individuals that follow it and acknowledge that more individuals are better people because they are catholic than are worse for it. And I will not answer these statements directly you have made because they are not related to our debate about God existence and I don't believe in catholicism so I have no reason to defend its theology. That you have had bad teachers or bad experiences with religion is not a valid argument against christianity, because its not representative of the majority of christians and these are not direct argument in themselves, they are anological personal examples. And that you have never met anyone able to sufficiently explain you protestantism and christian apolegetic so that you would comprehend it, is a result of the people you have associated with and like you stated yourself, you have never taken the time to understand it either. So this is not an argument against christianity. Same with a person that doesn't understand the argument of Evolution, that he have had bad teachers unable to do this and that many christians don't understand evolution is not an argument against evolution in itself. But I think you too would agree that evolution gets a lot better funding that christian apolegetics do, and evolution is part of federal curriculim world wide, christian apolegetics is not.

Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
I am not doing this. "Religious experiences," as they are called, are one of the big reasons that people adhere to the Christian faith and believe in a sentient God. People who claim to have these "religious experiences" and, for no obvious reason, completely ignore that many human experiences don't reflect reality (e.g., dreams), do not base their adherence to Christianity on logic. I also agree that biblical accuracy and intelligent design are two separate debates.

I don't think that the "force/cause" needs to be the biblical God. But, here's my question to you: does it need to be a sentient God with a personality? If not, then you agree with my that "God," as Western religions understand "him" to be, does not need to exist.

Well... yes. as stated earlier in at least two of my other posts. I would nott formulate my answer in that I agree fully with you on this because we do have different views on i.e religious/human experience or divine intervention. This is another debate again, but as stated earlier I said that christians can argue the existence of "God" through science and logic, but what we can't argue is that this "force" which we christians call "God" is our biblical "God" we believe in. At least not yet. This is where faith comes in. I fully admit that I can't explain God intervention into my own life, can only state that I know it and I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is real because I simply don't care. Its real to me and thats suffecient reason for me to believe it. But this is a seperate debate from intelligent design.

Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
If something needs to have a cause to begin, is it possible for something to exist that never came about? That seems to be an illogical premise. Something that exists must have come into existence otherwise it would not exist because it never would have existed. Just as something can't be in Kansas unless it went there, something cannot exist unless it came about.

Yes it is possible if it existed outside of what we percieve as time, I have to read up on the book "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig in order to be able to formulate an answer to this statement as I agree that it is a illogical premise that I'm unable to counter at this moment. So I will have to get back to you on this in order to defend my position.

anti-American

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 07, 2013, 04:14:22 AM
I'm not Catholic and I agree to the theology of catholicism but I respect the individuals that follow it and acknowledge that more individuals are better people because they are catholic than are worse for it. And I will not answer these statements directly you have made because they are not related to our debate about God existence and I don't believe in catholicism so I have no reason to defend its theology. 

I don't dispute that religion makes some people better people, although it makes many people worse than they otherwise could have possibly been. You are a Christian, right? Catholicism is a type of Christianity and I believe that every example of how Catholics' beliefs are illogical that I discussed, with the exception of the body and blood of Christ belief, are also beliefs that non-Catholic Christians have. Seeing as such beliefs are fundamental parts of the Christian story, I think you ought to address them. You believe in the Christian God so what I mentioned is absolutely relevant to our debate about that God's existence. I'm not asking you to defend Catholicism, I'm asking you to logically defend fundamental tenets of Christianity in general.

QuoteThat you have had bad teachers or bad experiences with religion is not a valid argument against christianity, because its not representative of the majority of christians and these are not direct argument in themselves, they are anological personal examples.

My experiences are indeed representative of how religion is taught to children.

QuoteAnd that you have never met anyone able to sufficiently explain you protestantism and christian apolegetic so that you would comprehend it, is a result of the people you have associated with and like you stated yourself, you have never taken the time to understand it either.

In school they "sufficiently" explained Christianity to me and I do "comprehend it." If associating with Nuns doesn't do the trick, what will? I was forced to "take the time to understand" Christianity. Besides, it isn't my job to scour the Earth ten times over looking for somebody who can adequately defend patently illogical beliefs. Trust me, if such explanations exist I would have heard about them by now. Several Christians have assured me that there are explanations and arguments that adequately counter my arguments. But merely asserting that something exists doesn't make it so, whether the thing that allegedly exists is the aforementioned arguments or God himself. 

QuoteI said that christians can argue the existence of "God" through science and logic, but what we can't argue is that this "force" which we christians call "God" is our biblical "God" we believe in. At least not yet. This is where faith comes in.

There, you said it yourself. Your belief in the Christian God is based on faith, not logic. What type of "God" can you make a logical argument for? I am not so much specifically concerned with the Christian God as I am a sentient, personal God in general. Do you agree that such a God cannot be logically proven?

QuoteYes it is possible if it existed outside of what we percieve as time, I have to read up on the book "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig in order to be able to formulate an answer to this statement as I agree that it is a illogical premise that I'm unable to counter at this moment. So I will have to get back to you on this in order to defend my position.

Either things that exist have to come into existence in order to exist or they don't. That is, either things can exist without having come into existence or they cannot. If the universe had to come into existence in order to exist then so too does God. The question is, once again, how did God come into existence? If God never came into existence, which is what you seem to believe, then how can God exist? If God did come into existence, when and who or what caused God to come into existence?

Solar

Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:23:11 AM


My experiences are indeed representative of how religion is taught to children.


Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

anti-American

Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.

I don't think that's true. For example, what real and true Christian does not believe in the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story? Likewise, what Christian does not believe in a sentient personal God who gets angry at humans, which he himself is responsible for designing and manufacturing, who malfunction, as all humans invariably do? What God creates things that are obviously and fundamentally flawed and then pretends that it is not his fault?

walkstall

Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.


Hell even Catholic disagree.   :wink:
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Solar

Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:37:08 AM
I don't think that's true. For example, what real and true Christian does not believe in the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story? Likewise, what Christian does not believe in a sentient personal God who gets angry at humans, which he himself is responsible for designing and manufacturing, who malfunction, as all humans invariably do? What God creates things that are obviously and fundamentally flawed and then pretends that it is not his fault?
You miss the point, you went on about pomp and circumstance questions placed to the Sisters.
My point is, that many Christians view the Catholic Religion as more a Religion about the Religion, than it is about Christ, like the ritual over the word.
There is a reason it enjoys a pass in the media, most Dems that call themselves Christians are more Catholic than Christian.

Now does it make sense? Point is, you were using Catholicism as representative of all Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

anti-American

Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:47:01 AM
You miss the point, you went on about pomp and circumstance questions placed to the Sisters.
My point is, that many Christians view the Catholic Religion as more a Religion about the Religion, than it is about Christ, like the ritual over the word.
There is a reason it enjoys a pass in the media, most Dems that call themselves Christians are more Catholic than Christian.

Now does it make sense? Point is, you were using Catholicism as representative of all Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth.

If I missed a point it was because it wasn't made. I take things literally, so when you say "some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board" I reasonably interpret that to mean that some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board. Anyway, there are some beliefs that all Christians share, like the whole Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins story. I am educated about these fundamental beliefs shared by all Christians. How was I using "Catholicism as representative of all Christians" if I talked about beliefs shared by all Christians?

Solar

Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:54:32 AM
If I missed a point it was because it wasn't made. I take things literally, so when you say "some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board" I reasonably interpret that to mean that some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board. Anyway, there are some beliefs that all Christians share, like the whole Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins story. I am educated about these fundamental beliefs shared by all Christians. How was I using "Catholicism as representative of all Christians" if I talked about beliefs shared by all Christians?
Quote
Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them.

Again, you equate all Christians with the Catholic Religion, just because a certain aspect of the order couldn't answer your questions.
Maybe you should have asked a Protestant, Baptist, Non-Trinitarian etc, but you based your opinion on one branch of Christianity.
That's the point.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

anti-American

Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 07:19:47 AM
Again, you equate all Christians with the Catholic Religion, just because a certain aspect of the order couldn't answer your questions.
Maybe you should have asked a Protestant, Baptist, Non-Trinitarian etc, but you based your opinion on one branch of Christianity.
That's the point.

I have and I have scoured the internet too. If answers to my questions existed, I would know about it. Besides, if someone had good answers, I'm sure Catholics would use those answers when teaching the faith.

Solar

Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 07:29:30 AM
I have and I have scoured the internet too. If answers to my questions existed, I would know about it. Besides, if someone had good answers, I'm sure Catholics would use those answers when teaching the faith.
What part of Non-Trinitarian Christian do you not understand?
Not all Christians are alike, which is still my point, you judged all Christians on one aspect of a Religion.
Mormons consider themselves Christians as well, while other Christians see them as a cult, one size does not fit all my friend.

For the record, I believe in no Religion.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Didn't mean to derail the conversation, but I believe established Religion is the reason for many Atheist beliefs, and has locked their minds away from spiritualism, or the ability to accept alternative beliefs.

Instead they took on a militant view of all things God/higher power.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Mountainshield

Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:23:11 AM
There, you said it yourself. Your belief in the Christian God is based on faith, not logic. What type of "God" can you make a logical argument for? I am not so much specifically concerned with the Christian God as I am a sentient, personal God in general. Do you agree that such a God cannot be logically proven?

Either things that exist have to come into existence in order to exist or they don't. That is, either things can exist without having come into existence or they cannot. If the universe had to come into existence in order to exist then so too does God. The question is, once again, how did God come into existence? If God never came into existence, which is what you seem to believe, then how can God exist? If God did come into existence, when and who or what caused God to come into existence?

Sorry for not answering before but I have been really busy with work. To the above posts I agree with Solar about your false generalization and application of your personal experience with christian doctrine, education and belief.

I don't have the time to answer all your posts, but will do so when I have the time, but I wanted to point out this paragraph.

The Christian God can and is logically proven through christian apolegetics, and every atheist argument against christian apolegetic either misunderstand the argument or come with straw men arguments. You have to be specific, what aspect of the existence of Christian God do you find that you are unable to understand logically?

Your argument about coming into existence is a logical false sentence. I'm arguing that God never had a beginning because God exist outside of time and the whole question of coming into existence is non applicable because the premise for something to come into existence does not apply to God due to the fact that it is a force that exist outside time and matter.

I'm going away for a week on a paid business trip to Iceland   :biggrin: But I will continue when i come back and find my books on the subject so I can formulate the argument more eloquently.




Solar

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
Sorry for not answering before but I have been really busy with work. To the above posts I agree with Solar about your false generalization and application of your personal experience with christian doctrine, education and belief.

I don't have the time to answer all your posts, but will do so when I have the time, but I wanted to point out this paragraph.

The Christian God can and is logically proven through christian apolegetics, and every atheist argument against christian apolegetic either misunderstand the argument or come with straw men arguments. You have to be specific, what aspect of the existence of Christian God do you find that you are unable to understand logically?

Your argument about coming into existence is a logical false sentence. I'm arguing that God never had a beginning because God exist outside of time and the whole question of coming into existence is non applicable because the premise for something to come into existence does not apply to God due to the fact that it is a force that exist outside time and matter.

I'm going away for a week on a paid business trip to Iceland   :biggrin: But I will continue when i come back and find my books on the subject so I can formulate the argument more eloquently.
Actually you did quite well. :biggrin:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!