Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on January 18, 2008, 02:28:48 PM
-
... then health is a disease.
Discuss.
:D
-
if atheism is a religion then not beleiving in santa claus is a relgion also
-
...then baldness is a hair colour.
-
Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.
Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster. The will undoubtedly reply no. They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.
A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.
Christians and atheists are closer than you think.
-
Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.
Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster. The will undoubtedly reply no. They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.
A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.
Christians and atheists are closer than you think.
"We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
-
Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.
Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster. The will undoubtedly reply no. They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.
A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.
Christians and atheists are closer than you think.
The only difference between a Christian and an atheist is the object of his worship, or who he holds as the highest sentient being in existence.
Christians worship God; atheists worship "logic and reason" (that is, man-made logic and reason). In effect, he is worshipping himself.
-
Please explain our logic-and-reason-worshipping rituals, MCWAY ::)
-
Please explain our logic-and-reason-worshipping rituals, MCWAY ::)
Sure, as soon as you and MMC78 explain how Christians are atheists.
Atheism, by definition, is the "doctrine that there is NO deity".
Since Christians believe that there is a deity, it's pretty hard for them to be atheists.
But, if you or MMC78 have an idea of how that's possible, I'm all ears!! ;D
-
Sure. I'm glad you bring it up.
Many times, you, loco, and mightymouse operate under the presumption that atheism means "God does not exist." That's "God" with the capital G, ie your god.
Review mightymouse's posts if you want confirmation of that. There's a subtle distinction there, the fallacy being that if atheism is refuted, there "God" exists.
The true conclusion would be "if atheism is refuted, then a god exists." You have idea which one, and every other religion can lay just as much a claim to that being their own god as you can!
You do something very similar when you say things like "a universe governed by 'laws' points in the direction of a law giver."
The fallacy you commit there is to assume, allude, or imply in any way that that law giver bears any relation to your own god. For all you know, it could be Zeus, Allah, or no deity at all, just natural processes.
You are trying to score debate points on these fronts:
1. blurring the line between whether atheism is "not believing in any gods" or "not believing in God" (in the latter case, every non-Christian is an atheist.)
2. redefining "gods" outside the concept of "supernatural" and making it so that food is a god, reason is a god, sex is a god, anything you enjoy doing is a god, etc, while at other times saying that "god" is outside space and time and doesn't fall under our requirements for evidence.
3. You imply that refuting proposition A proves proposition B: e.g. if evolution doesn't have an answer to a certain point, therefore creationism wins by default.
Every believer implicitly thinks that atheists are those who do not believe in one's god(s). The Romans thought the first Christians were atheists for not worshiping the Roman gods.
Now go ahead and tell me what my reason-worshiping rituals are, and how we decorate the altar of logic ::)
-
Sure. I'm glad you bring it up.
Many times, you, loco, and mightymouse operate under the presumption that atheism means "God does not exist." That's "God" with the capital G, ie your god.
Review mightymouse's posts if you want confirmation of that. There's a subtle distinction there, the fallacy being that if atheism is refuted, there "God" exists.
The true conclusion would be "if atheism is refuted, then a god exists." You have idea which one, and every other religion can lay just as much a claim to that being their own god as you can!
Try that again. I actually posted the definiton of atheism from Webster's dictionary, which looked something like: the "doctrine that there is NO deity".
You do something very similar when you say things like "a universe governed by 'laws' points in the direction of a law giver."
The reason I say that is because laws are crafted and drafted by sentient beings. They don't just pop up on their own with no cognizant guidance.
The fallacy you commit there is to assume, allude, or imply in any way that that law giver bears any relation to your own god. For all you know, it could be Zeus, Allah, or no deity at all, just natural processes.
Actually, the fallacy is on your part, assuming that Christians substitute "God" or a belief in God for lack of knowledge of a particular natural process in a certain area.
You are trying to score debate points on these fronts:
1. blurring the line between whether atheism is "not believing in any gods" or "not believing in God" (in the latter case, every non-Christian is an atheist.)
2. redefining "gods" outside the concept of "supernatural" and making it so that food is a god, reason is a god, sex is a god, anything you enjoy doing is a god, etc, while at other times saying that "god" is outside space and time and doesn't fall under our requirements for evidence.
3. You imply that refuting proposition A proves proposition B: e.g. if evolution doesn't have an answer to a certain point, therefore creationism wins by default.
1. No blurring necessary. Again, I posted the definition of atheism, as a frame of reference.
2. I didn't redefine anything. The definition I used is in black-and-white in Webster's dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, page 500), again as a frame of reference. As for "our requirements for evidence", I've stated that observation of a deity is done indirectly, if such a deity is beyond man's ability to detect with his senses.
3. I implied nothing of the sort. I have, on the other hand, cited quotes from evolutionists, who have stated that they believe in evolution (speficially its tenet of spontaneous generation) because without it, they must (by default) subscribe to some sort of supernatural creation.
Every believer implicitly thinks that atheists are those who do not believe in one's god(s). The Romans thought the first Christians were atheists for not worshiping the Roman gods.
That is incorrect. I don't implicity think that. And, I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the other believers here don't, either.
Now go ahead and tell me what my reason-worshiping rituals are, and how we decorate the altar of logic ::)
I think I mentioned it earlier: That would be the assignment of man's logic and reason as the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.
Now, about that every Christian is an athiest thing. Recap: Atheism is the doctrine that there is NO deity. Since a Christian believes that there's at least ONE deity, again, that makes it awfully hard for a Christian to be an atheist. It doesn't matter how many other deities in which he doesn't believe (there's no percentage thing, contrary to your earlier posts). He believes in at least ONE. Hence, he ain't an atheist. It's an all-or-nothing deal.
-
The reason I say that is because laws are crafted and drafted by sentient beings. They don't just pop up on their own with no cognizant guidance.
False. See: Evolution, the free-market economy, microeconomics, Newton's laws, osmosis, and the list goes on and on.
None of these need a "sentient being" or its "cognizant guidance"... God is no more needed for the laws of nature than a commissar is needed for an open-market economy.
Actually, the fallacy is on your part, assuming that Christians substitute "God" or a belief in God for lack of knowledge of a particular natural process in a certain area.
Whenever you attribute any aspect of creation to God, you are doing just that. You don't know how it came about. You attribute it to the deity of your choice on no evidence.
1. No blurring necessary. Again, I posted the definition of atheism, as a frame of reference.
While you're at it, look up "equivocation" in the dictionary, you do that a lot :)
2. I didn't redefine anything. The definition I used is in black-and-white in Webster's dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, page 500), again as a frame of reference. As for "our requirements for evidence", I've stated that observation of a deity is done indirectly, if such a deity is beyond man's ability to detect with his senses.
Observation of radiation, atoms, and black holes is also done indirectly, but that observation is open to verification by others. Is observation of the deity open to verification too?
I implied nothing of the sort. I have, on the other hand, cited quotes from evolutionists, who have stated that they believe in evolution (speficially its tenet of spontaneous generation) because without it, they must (by default) subscribe to some sort of supernatural creation.
You have in other threads, my friends: attacking one aspect of evolution and then positing your god as a creator. It's still a fallacy, whoever says it.
That is incorrect. I don't implicity think that. And, I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the other believers here don't, either.
Well, look again at mighty's posts. To him people are either believers, or atheists. And believers of course, like him, believe in Jesus.
That would be the assignment of man's logic and reason as the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.
What? What is that you said? Asking people to think? HOW DARE YOU!!! Heaven forbid folks should exercise their faculty of reason and evaluate evidence!!!
Are you sure that's what it's about, MCWAY? Are you absolutely sure?
Good heavens!!! People start thinking on their own today, the pews will be empty pretty soon!
Seriously now, as for man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth, you are the one introducing the superlatives, not I.
All I say is that the scientific method is a reliable, time-tested way of discovering facts, because it relies on evidence, on replication, fact-checking, double-checking, and peer review.
Man's "logic" is often flawed: as evidence, I present to you all the theologians I ever heard of.
-
Oh, and another one:
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
-
False. See: Evolution, the free-market economy, microeconomics, Newton's laws, osmosis, and the list goes on and on.
None of these need a "sentient being" or its "cognizant guidance"... God is no more needed for the laws of nature than a commissar is needed for an open-market economy.
Exactly who starts any of the aforementioned processes? How do economies run without sentient beings (namely people) spending money? Newton's laws? He discovered them but they aren't his. Then again, finding something that was already there would indicate (or imply) that someone put those principles into motion. If they were "Newton's laws", the entity responsible for their being would be Newton himself.
Whenever you attribute any aspect of creation to God, you are doing just that. You don't know how it came about. You attribute it to the deity of your choice on no evidence.
Incorrect!! When a believer sees and learns about the intricacies of certain processes, he gets a better appreciation for the design of the Creator. The more he learns, the more he reveres God's power. That's a far cry from your alleged claims. Natural processes do not necessitate the absence of a supernatural source (except for the atheist, who philosophically doesn't wish to acknowledge one).
While you're at it, look up "equivocation" in the dictionary, you do that a lot :)
Observation of radiation, atoms, and black holes is also done indirectly, but that observation is open to verification by others. Is observation of the deity open to verification too?
It was and is, through history and archaeology.
You have in other threads, my friends: attacking one aspect of evolution and then positing your god as a creator. It's still a fallacy, whoever says it.
Well, look again at mighty's posts. To him people are either believers, or atheists. And believers of course, like him, believe in Jesus.
What part of the words, "SOME of the believers on this board........" did you not grasp? As I didn't use the word, "all", your bringing up MightyMouse is rather pointless.
What? What is that you said? Asking people to think? HOW DARE YOU!!! Heaven forbid folks should exercise their faculty of reason and evaluate evidence!!!
Another silly assumption on your part, that reason and having people think gets suspended when one exercises faith or belief in God.
Are you sure that's what it's about, MCWAY? Are you absolutely sure?
Good heavens!!! People start thinking on their own today, the pews will be empty pretty soon!
Funny!!! Atheists have been saying that for nearly 200 years. Yet, churches are still running!! Once again, it's another erroneous quip on your part that people who think on their own reject their faith. Of course, that doesn't even take into account Christians who were once atheists.
Seriously now, as for man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth, you are the one introducing the superlatives, not I.
That goes back to what I said awhile back: Either you believe that man's logic and reason is such or you do not. If the latter applies to you, you're dangerously close to being bumped out of the "atheist" category.
All I say is that the scientific method is a reliable, time-tested way of discovering facts, because it relies on evidence, on replication, fact-checking, double-checking, and peer review.
Indeed it is. And, that's one of the reason I do NOT believe in evolution.
Man's "logic" is often flawed: as evidence, I present to you all the theologians I ever heard of.
Agreed!!! I present to you all the evolutionists of which I've heard. But, I don't hold man's logic as the highest standard. Do you?
-
Hold it right there... You said there is archaeological and historical evidence for events described in the Bible?
Yes, the Bible does talk about historical figures/events/places that have been independently verified. We don't need the Bible to know about the ancient Egyptians or Babylon.
But as for the Bible's magical claims, where is the historical or archaeological evidence for the following:
the resurrection, the virgin birth, all the miracles.
Please share this evidence if you have it. Thank you :)
-
Hold it right there... You said there is archaeological and historical evidence for events described in the Bible?
Yes, the Bible does talk about historical figures/events/places that have been independently verified. We don't need the Bible to know about the ancient Egyptians or Babylon.
But as for the Bible's magical claims, where is the historical or archaeological evidence for the following:
the resurrection, the virgin birth, all the miracles.
Please share this evidence if you have it. Thank you :)
"All the miracles" I can't provide. A number of them, however, the evidence supporting such have existed for decades, if not centuries.
In fact, I gave an example of one on the other thread, regarding the book of Daniel. Aside from the specific example I gave about Belshazzar, there are other events, depicted by that book that have been verified by historical and archaeological evidence. Of course, non-believers, unable to deny the evidence supporting such acts in Daniel did the usual "anonymous authorship/late-date" routine to explain away the prophetic aspects of this book. But, the further examination of this book tends to refute such a claim.
As far as the Resurrection and virgin birth goes, we discussed the historical evidence some time ago. Part of that would, of course, the Gospels themselves.
Now, I believe you were going to explain how a Christian is an "atheist", given that atheism is the doctrine that there is NO deity and Christians believe that there is ONE deity.
-
Hold it right there again,
you say the Gospels are evidence in favor of their own claims?
So much for independent confirmation ::)
If you allow the Gospels to be evidence for their own claims, then you have to allow every other "holy" book to be evidence of its own claims, right?
-
Hold it right there again,
you say the Gospels are evidence in favor of their own claims?
So much for independent confirmation ::)
If you allow the Gospels to be evidence for their own claims, then you have to allow every other "holy" book to be evidence of its own claims, right?
Again, you missed the word, "Part". You have a habit of doing that.
And, as stated earlier, you have some explaining to do. In particular, how is a Christian an atheist? Of course, if you're done with the "Hold it" routine, perhaps you might answer the whole "do-you" or "don't-you" routine, with regards your believing that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.
-
good thread
An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims ::)
Brilliant!
As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy :)
If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.
If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.
Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!
In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.
-
Again, you missed the word, "Part". You have a habit of doing that.
And, as stated earlier, you have some explaining to do. In particular, how is a Christian an atheist? Of course, if you're done with the "Hold it" routine, perhaps you might answer the whole "do-you" or "don't-you" routine, with regards your believing that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.
you cant have god referring to both the supernatural creator of the universe and man in the same sentence. its contradictory as the terms are wholely different.
I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims ::)
Brilliant!
As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy :)
If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.
If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.
Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!
In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.
he wont get this point, he will just ignore it and post the same blathering non sense he has been posting about atheism beleiving in man or some shit. atheism worships nothing.
you avoid the question that if you accept the gospels as proof why dont you accept all other holy books as proof of their respective gods?
-
I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims ::)
Brilliant!
As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy :)
If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.
If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.
Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!
In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.
That's why I gave the definition of atheism, found in Webster's dictionary. Many Christians "implicity" think of atheists no believing in God, because many atheists aim their less-than-stellar remarks at the God that the Christians serve.
You used a different definition for the term, atheism, when you made your statement. Think about that, before you accuse someone of being dishonest.
-
usmokepole, he just proved you 100% right 8)
-
good thread
An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
First of all, I never claimed to dismiss any possible gods. In fact, I listed some of the gods that Israel's neighbors worshipped, the last time somebody accused me of doing that.
you cant have god referring to both the supernatural creator of the universe and man in the same sentence. its contradictory as the terms are wholely different.
Tell that to the Webster's dictionary. Again, it's on page 500, Webster's Dictionary, 10th edition. Among the definitions of "god" are "a person or thing of supreme value" and "a powerful ruler".
he wont get this point, he will just ignore it and post the same blathering non sense he has been posting about atheism beleiving in man or some shit. atheism worships nothing.
Unfortunately, YOU are the one who didn't get the point. I gave the definition of "atheism" as described in that same dictionary. In it, the term is coined as "the doctrine that there is no deity". Christians believe that there IS a diety; therefore, they aren't atheists. Columbusdude defined atheism as what he thinks many Christians believe it to be: the specific disbelief in their God. That's not the definition I used. And, as stated earlier, the percentage thing doesn't work. It's an either-or scenario: You either believe there is a deity or you don't. If you believe in one, you aren't an atheist, period.
you avoid the question that if you accept the gospels as proof why dont you accept all other holy books as proof of their respective gods?
Who says I didn't? That is the assertion of you and some of the other non-believers, here. That would be one of those nice strawman arguments about which Columbus was complaining.
-
First of all, I never claimed to dismiss any possible gods.
So you're saying that you not "believe in one God," like the Nicene creed says? ???
-
usmokepole, he just proved you 100% right 8)
If Christians can be atheists, by your terms, why are you getting upset, when I refer to atheism (by my terms) as man worshipping himself (i.e. his own logic and reason)?
-
do you beleive in zeus? if not your stance is atheistic,i dont have to accept your definition as is often the case in debates, there are many defintions and yours is useless as its to broad and nebulous.
you can have many definitions and your stance on all other gods is atheistic.
"Who says I didn't? That is the assertion of you and some of the other non-believers, here. That would be one of those nice strawman arguments about which Columbus was complaining. "
ok then, whats your answer?
-
So you're saying that you not "believe in one God," like the Nicene creed says? ???
What the Nicene creed says is of little concern to me.
-
If Christians can be atheists, by your terms, why are you getting upset, when I refer to atheism (by my terms) as man worshipping himself (i.e. his own logic and reason)?
because your making up your own defintion of atheism with starting from the assumption that worship is central. atheists do not worship anything but insted lack belief your attempt to tell them they worship themselves is nonsensical as they worship nothing, hence your reference is useless.
-
So our own MCWAY is more a pantheist than a monotheist? ???
Who woulda thunk it?!
-
do you beleive in zeus? if not your stance is atheistic,i dont have to accept your definition as is often the case in debates, there are many defintions and yours is useless as its to broad and nebulous.
"Mine" is useless? That's mighty mature of you!! ::)
I used one definition for atheism, a neutral one found in a neutral source (therfore, it isn't mine).
you can have many definitions and your stance on all other gods is atheistic.
Now, what was that you were saying about posting the same blathering nonsense?
You can have many definitions or you can have one. I picked one, a neutral one. Again, if by Columbusdude's standard, I'm an atheist; then, by my standard of atheism, both you and he are NOT, because (by my terms) the "god" you worship is man (one of the dictionary's definition of "god" is "a person or thing of supreme value").
So, why are the two of you complaining? If you wish to use a standardized or neutral definition of terms, that's fine. If you want to apply your own standards and your own terms; don't blubber and cry, when I do the same.
"Who says I didn't? That is the assertion of you and some of the other non-believers, here. That would be one of those nice strawman arguments about which Columbus was complaining."
ok then, whats your answer?
The question from Columbus was, "If you allow the Gospels to be evidence for their own claims, then you have to allow every other "holy" book to be evidence of its own claims, right?
My answer was and is that it can be PART of the evidence, just as the Gospels are PART of the evidence supporting its respective deities. That was never an issue.
BTW, since you're so big on questions being answered, perhaps you could persuade ColumbusDude to address whether or not he believes that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or is man the highest sentient being in the universe).
Just a thought!!
-
MCWAY, have you heard of Robinson Crusoe? Have you read the book?
-
because your making up your own defintion of atheism with starting from the assumption that worship is central. atheists do not worship anything but insted lack belief your attempt to tell them they worship themselves is nonsensical as they worship nothing, hence your reference is useless.
It's no more nonsensical than your claiming that Christians are atheists, because they believe in just one out of a large number of deities.
Atheists believe that there is no deity. As long as someone believes in ONE deity, he is not an atheist. And, for the nth time, the definition of atheism comes from the Webster's dictionary, not from me. I didn't invent the term.
-
So our own MCWAY is more a pantheist than a monotheist? ???
Who woulda thunk it?!
Yep. There's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost....WAIT A MINUTE!!! Those three are one, according to Scripture. NEVER MIND!!!!
;D
-
Where does it say in Scripture that those three are one?
The only reference I can think of is some verses in John that are of dubious origin and were probably planted in there by later scribes.
-
Where does it say in Scripture that those three are one?
The only reference I can think of is some verses in John that are of dubious origin and were probably planted in there by later scribes.
At least one reference is 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, what's so dubious about the origin. Traditional Bible scholars hold that the disciple John is the author of that book, along with his Gospel and the book of Revelation.
Now, regarding the question I asked some time ago: do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, said another way, is man the highest sentient being in the universe)?
-
At least one reference is 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, what's so dubious about the origin. Traditional Bible scholars hold that the disciple John is the author of that book, along with his Gospel and the book of Revelation.
I'll let you read up on that in Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus."
Now, regarding the question I asked some time ago: do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, said another way, is man the highest sentient being in the universe)?
How am I supposed to know if there are any "higher" sentient beings than man in the universe ??? I'm not a space explorer!
-
I'll let you read up on that in Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus."
How am I supposed to know if there are any "higher" sentient beings than man in the universe ??? I'm not a space explorer!
I didn't ask you if you "know". I asked you if you BELIEVE that such is the case!!!!!!!!!!!! (I asked that earlier, but I should have put that in parentheses in my last post).
-
Well I don't have any basis for comparison, so I have no ideas on the matter. I already did tell you what I believe about the scientific method, that it is the most reliable method we have for obtaining knowledge, thanks to all the safeguards built into it.
-
Well I don't have any basis for comparison, so I have no ideas on the matter. I already did tell you what I believe about the scientific method, that it is the most reliable method we have for obtaining knowledge, thanks to all the safeguards built into it.
I didn't ask about what you believe about the scientific method or if you had any basis of comparison.
My question was: Do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, that man is the highest sentient being in the universe)?
-
I already answered you. I have nothing more to add to that.
Sorry if you were expecting something fancy ?!
-
I already answered you. I have nothing more to add to that.
Sorry if you were expecting something fancy ?!
Yep, how silly of me to expect something as fancy as.......YES or NO
How silly of me!
-
Sorry man, I like to form informed opinions, not just make up opinions about stuff.
When I've done my homework and thought through the information, only then do I form an opinion about something..
Yeah yeah, I know...
-
Sorry man, I like to form informed opinions, not just make up opinions about stuff.
When I've done my homework and thought through the information, only then do I form an opinion about something..
Yeah yeah, I know...
I thought you had an informed opinion on the matter, one way or the other. What's with the assertion that a "YES" or "NO" answer implies that your view is just made up?
-
Oh dear... Here is the last I will say on this matter.
You are asking me whether I think mankind is the "highest" sentient being in the universe.
I only have access to data from a sample of size n = 1, that sample point being mankind.
As they taught me in my intro stats class, it is very bad to do inference on samples of size n = 1.
Therefore, I cannot make any inference on the matter.
And that's that :)
-
Oh dear... Here is the last I will say on this matter.
You are asking me whether I think mankind is the "highest" sentient being in the universe.
I only have access to data from a sample of size n = 1, that sample point being mankind.
It appears you've just answered my question (unofficially). Your stating that the size n = 1 is an assumption that no other known entity is equal to (or sentient enough to lump with) mankind.
As they taught me in my intro stats class, it is very bad to do inference on samples of size n = 1.
Therefore, I cannot make any inference on the matter.
And that's that :)
You can, but (for the moment, at least) you won't. Leave it to an atheist to make a simple task difficult.
-
It appears you've just answered my question (unofficially). Your stating that the size n = 1 is an assumption that no other known entity is equal to (or sentient enough to lump with) mankind.
You can, but (for the moment, at least) you won't. Leave it to an atheist to make a simple task difficult.
as we know it man is the most intelligent sentient beings, but that isnt an absolute because we have travelled no where in the universe. it doesnt mean we worship ourselves and if it did it doesnt matter, as my definition of a god is a supernatural being.
-
The only difference between a Christian and an atheist is the object of his worship, or who he holds as the highest sentient being in existence.
Christians worship God; atheists worship "logic and reason" (that is, man-made logic and reason). In effect, he is worshipping himself.
Not to butt in, but these more esoteric comparisons are lost on me, ;D so am asking for clarification.
Worshiping logic and reasoning alone, because there is always an inflection of the subjective, would be flawed. I'm assuming that the person who straps a bomb to his chest and goes into a cafe to blow it up, has come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do based on some kind of logic and reasoning. So no, I wouldn't say that most atheists hold logic and reasoning up as the highest arbitrator of truth unless empirical evidence is added to the equation. We don't stick our hands into bowls of burning embers because we know the result will definitely be bad.
When we say "God created man in his image," isn't that some form of self-worship? I think it was intended to be so. And when Christians pray (and many do) for the positive outcome of a baseball game, or for a better financial situation, or not to lose their hair, isn't that also self worship... in effect thinking that an omnipotent entity responsible for an entire universe micro-manages to the extent of living inside each individual and being wholly involved in that person's petty day-to-day issues? We're all self-worshipers to some extent.
-
Not to butt in, but these more esoteric comparisons are lost on me, ;D so am asking for clarification.
Worshiping logic and reasoning alone, because there is always an inflection of the subjective, would be flawed. I'm assuming that the person who straps a bomb to his chest and goes into a cafe to blow it up, has come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do based on some kind of logic and reasoning. So no, I wouldn't say that most atheists hold logic and reasoning up as the highest arbitrator of truth unless empirical evidence is added to the equation. We don't stick our hands into bowls of burning embers because we know the result will definitely be bad.
When we say "God created man in his image," isn't that some form of self-worship? I think it was intended to be so. And when Christians pray (and many do) for the positive outcome of a baseball game, or for a better financial situation, or not to lose their hair, isn't that also self worship... in effect thinking that an omnipotent entity responsible for an entire universe micro-manages to the extent of living inside each individual and being wholly involved in that person's petty day-to-day issues? We're all self-worshipers to some extent.
Using reason and argument with MCWAY is a fairly futile exercise.
-
I didn't ask about what you believe about the scientific method or if you had any basis of comparison.
My question was: Do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, that man is the highest sentient being in the universe)?
Scientists and free thinkers know that truth is not a property of man. The universe is governed by laws that were discovered by man. Natural science is the process of discovery of these laws. Our understanding of those laws is limited by human fallibility.
Established science is NOT an authority to be worshiped. It is frequently refined or out right invalidated by later findings. It is precisely science's SELF CRITICAL and REVISIONIST stance that separates it from superstition like religious faith.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch ain't it?
-
... then health is a disease.
Discuss.
:D
It is not a religion.
It is the lack of religion.
You could see it as an uncharged battery.
Or an empty glass.
Or perhaps a neutral zone.
Today, we don't have much proof of any religions.
My guess is that if nothing dramatically changes (eg a Hindu or Christian God shows up), atheism will in a century or so become the norm.
Not so much that people will abandon religions.
But moreso that atheism will be the accepted foundation that we all stand on, and then make a choice, if we want to dwelve into a religion or stay non-religious.
-
Scientists and free thinkers know that truth is not a property of man. The universe is governed by laws that were discovered by man. Natural science is the process of discovery of these laws. Our understanding of those laws is limited by human fallibility.
Established science is NOT an authority to be worshiped. It is frequently refined or out right invalidated by later findings. It is precisely science's SELF CRITICAL and REVISIONIST stance that separates it from superstition like religious faith.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch ain't it?
he doesnt experience dissonance as he just wont allow it to register. he beleives science is against god when all it does is look for truth. so far we have found over a million natural processes, and zero gods. but hes there, waiting in the shadows as the creator of all, he is the blip in the quatum vaccum. what a god we have.
-
If atheism is a religion, then famine is a foot-high stack of chocolate-chip pancakes with maple syrup and whipped cream on top!
-
Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster. The will undoubtedly reply no.
MMC78,
Ask me.
-
Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.
Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster. The will undoubtedly reply no. They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.
A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.
Christians and atheists are closer than you think.
Non sequitur. Even if your statement above were true, it does not follow that the God of the Bible does not exist.
-
Non sequitur. Even if your statement above were true, it does not follow that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Why do you believe your particular deity is more valid than the many others bouncing about in the heads of delusional men?
-
Non sequitur. Even if your statement above were true, it does not follow that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Exactly!! Their claims that Christians are atheists fall flat, for one simple reason (which, for some reason, has rubbed them the wrong way): Atheism is defined, per the Webster's dictionary, as the doctrine that there is NO DEITY.
Our skeptic buddies keep trying to play this percentage game, claiming that Christians believe in 1 deity out of 5000, 10000, or another large number of deities; whereas they believe in no dieties at all. Therefore, the difference between 0.00000000001 and 0.000000000 is insignficant enough to the point that we believers can be called atheists.
The problem is (and I don't know why Columbus, Pole, and MMC are bothered by it) the issue isn't a percentage thing. It's an either/or thing. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. That's like saying (since this is a bodydbuilding site, I'll use this example) that Shawn Ray and Samir Bannout have both enter 15 Mr. Olympia contests. Both of their Olympia-winning percentages are so low, that the difference is insignificant. Therefore you can say that Samir Bannout never won the Mr. Olympia.
But, whenever a magazine does a roll-call on all the past Mr. Os, Bannout's name is on the list and that of Shawn Ray is not. Why is that? Simply this:
All it takes is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia champion. It doesn't matter if Bannout entered 100 Mr. Olympias and lost 99 of them. All he needs is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia Champion. Conversely, Shawn Ray has placed top-5 at all but one of his multiple Olympia appearance. But, he's never placed FIRST.
One out of ten; one out of 100, one out of 1000; it doesn't matter. One win is all it takes to be Mr. Olympia.
If you prefer football analogies, look at John Elway. Prior to 1997, people always harped on the fact that he lost three Super Bowls and the franchise for which he placed lost four. The Buffalo Bills lost four as did the Minnesota Vikings. Well, guess what happened in Super Bowl XXXII: Elway and the Broncos finally got a Super Bowl win. All of a sudden, nobody talked about how many SBs the Brocons and Elway lost. All that mattered was that ONE win. The Broncos would win another title. But, to win two titles, you first have to win ONE.
Same goes for the Christians-are-atheists thing. To be an atheist (by Webster's definition, a standardized neutral one) you must believe in NO deities, whatsover, NONE. If you believe in just ONE, the others in which you don't believe have no bearing and don't matter. If you believe in just one, as is the case if you're a Christian, you are NOT and atheist, period.
Don't you find it funny that "enlightened" men like Dawkins can't seem to grasp the most simplistic and basic of concepts, Loco?
;D
-
he beleives science is against god when all it does is look for truth. so far we have found over a million natural processes, and zero gods. but hes there, waiting in the shadows as the creator of all, he is the blip in the quatum vaccum. what a god we have.
Wrong again!!! I don't believe science is against God and never have. To the contrary, as David put it in Psalms 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork".
he doesnt experience dissonance as he just wont allow it to register.
What you won't allow to register the simplest of concepts, namely the fact that belief in just ONE deity take you out of the atheist category.
Contrary to your claims and that of Columbus, MMC, Dawkins, and other like-minded skeptics, there's no percentage involved. That's the case in a number of things in life:
How many kids does it take for you to be a parent? ONE!!!
How many times do you have to have sex to lose your virginity? ONE!!!
and, in the same vein,
How many deities does somebody have to believe to exist to not be deemed an atheist? You guess it........ONE!!!
-
If atheism is a religion, then famine is a foot-high stack of chocolate-chip pancakes with maple syrup and whipped cream on top!
But, ColumbusDude, the percentages are so low (in how many deities get worshipped, especially with Christians) that the difference is insignficant, remember? ;D
-
Exactly!! Their claims that Christians are atheists fall flat, for one simple reason (which, for some reason, has rubbed them the wrong way): Atheism is defined, per the Webster's dictionary, as the doctrine that there is NO DEITY.
Our skeptic buddies keep trying to play this percentage game, claiming that Christians believe in 1 deity out of 5000, 10000, or another large number of deities; whereas they believe in no dieties at all. Therefore, the difference between 0.00000000001 and 0.000000000 is insignficant enough to the point that we believers can be called atheists.
The problem is (and I don't know why Columbus, Pole, and MMC are bothered by it) the issue isn't a percentage thing. It's an either/or thing. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. That's like saying (since this is a bodydbuilding site, I'll use this example) that Shawn Ray and Samir Bannout have both enter 15 Mr. Olympia contests. Both of their Olympia-winning percentages are so low, that the difference is insignificant. Therefore you can say that Samir Bannout never won the Mr. Olympia.
But, whenever a magazine does a roll-call on all the past Mr. Os, Bannout's name is on the list and that of Shawn Ray is not. Why is that? Simply this:
All it takes is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia champion. It doesn't matter if Bannout entered 100 Mr. Olympias and lost 99 of them. All he needs is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia Champion. Conversely, Shawn Ray has placed top-5 at all but one of his multiple Olympia appearance. But, he's never placed FIRST.
One out of ten; one out of 100, one out of 1000; it doesn't matter. One win is all it takes to be Mr. Olympia.
If you prefer football analogies, look at John Elway. Prior to 1997, people always harped on the fact that he lost three Super Bowls and the franchise for which he placed lost four. The Buffalo Bills lost four as did the Minnesota Vikings. Well, guess what happened in Super Bowl XXXII: Elway and the Broncos finally got a Super Bowl win. All of a sudden, nobody talked about how many SBs the Brocons and Elway lost. All that mattered was that ONE win. The Broncos would win another title. But, to win two titles, you first have to win ONE.
Same goes for the Christians-are-atheists thing. To be an atheist (by Webster's definition, a standardized neutral one) you must believe in NO deities, whatsover, NONE. If you believe in just ONE, the others in which you don't believe have no bearing and don't matter. If you believe in just one, as is the case if you're a Christian, you are NOT and atheist, period.
Don't you find it funny that "enlightened" men like Dawkins can't seem to grasp the most simplistic and basic of concepts, Loco?
;D
not a bad post by you, one of your better ones to be honest. however, your comparing a concrete example like winning an event to an abstract topic like atheism which can be defined in a number of ways. your defintion is valid, however what columbus dude is trying to point out is that you deny all other gods for no good reason and accept yours. why do you deny all other gods, have you researched all other religions, have you looked for other gods?
i would imagine not, but it always strikes me as odd that whatever culture your raised in=your god. kinda takes the strength of the evidence out of the equation, since the highest pos correlation is between indoctrination and faith/religion.
-
Exactly!! Their claims that Christians are atheists fall flat, for one simple reason (which, for some reason, has rubbed them the wrong way): Atheism is defined, per the Webster's dictionary, as the doctrine that there is NO DEITY.
I should have said "non-believer" rather than atheist. In either case my intent was clear.
Most Christians believe in their god because of circumstance. Your religion is a product of your upbringing. If you were born in Iran, you would be a Muslim, if you were born 2100 years ago, you would likely be a pagan. You reject other dieties not because you have carefully surveyed each and every one of them (both ancient and modern) but because it's all you know.
What's most distressing about the circumstantial faith of Christianity is that it teaches that the poor little girl born a Muslim Yemen is doomed to eternal torture in hell for rejecting Yeshua.
Our skeptic buddies keep trying to play this percentage game
I didn't notice anyone playing a percentage game.
-
I should have said "non-believer" rather than atheist. In either case my intent was clear.
Most Christians believe in their god because of circumstance. Your religion is a product of your upbringing. If you were born in Iran, you would be a Muslim, if you were born 2100 years ago, you would likely be a pagan. You reject other dieties not because you have carefully surveyed each and every one of them (both ancient and modern) but because it's all you know.
What's most distressing about the circumstantial faith of Christianity is that it teaches that the poor little girl born a Muslim Yemen is doomed to eternal torture in hell for rejecting Yeshua.
I didn't notice anyone playing a percentage game.
This is exactly true.
How many people since Jesus's death are unfairly destined to hell becuase of this? 50 Billion? Exclusivity is nothing but doctrine.
-
not a bad post by you, one of your better ones to be honest. however, your comparing a concrete example like winning an event to an abstract topic like atheism which can be defined in a number of ways. your defintion is valid, however what columbus dude is trying to point out is that you deny all other gods for no good reason and accept yours. why do you deny all other gods, have you researched all other religions, have you looked for other gods?
i would imagine not, but it always strikes me as odd that whatever culture your raised in=your god. kinda takes the strength of the evidence out of the equation, since the highest pos correlation is between indoctrination and faith/religion.
Atheism can be defined in a number of ways. That's why I went to the dictionary, for a neutral frame of reference to be used by all, a "concrete" one (if you will). That definition belongs to Webster's Dictionary, NOT to me.
Based on that definition, atheism is anything but abstract: It's the doctrine that there is no deity. Therefore, Christians can't be called atheists. No matter how many deities Christians supposedly deny, as long as they believe in one deity, they aren't atheists.
You will recall that, when Trapezkerl made the same claim about denying other gods in "his" top-10 list, I refuted that by mentioning the various gods of Israel's neighbors mentioned in Scripture (i.e. Dagon, Molech, Baal, Asheroth, Meradoch, just to name a few).
So, what exactly am I allegedly denying, as it relates to these deities: Their existence? Their might?
I should have said "non-believer" rather than atheist. In either case my intent was clear.
Most Christians believe in their god because of circumstance. Your religion is a product of your upbringing. If you were born in Iran, you would be a Muslim, if you were born 2100 years ago, you would likely be a pagan. You reject other dieties not because you have carefully surveyed each and every one of them (both ancient and modern) but because it's all you know.
A mere assumption on your part, and a somewhat inaccurate one, at that. A non-believer, if you will, is just that. They believe in NO deity. Last time I checked, one is greater than zero, and Christians believe in a deity. So, regardless of what term you use, your claim falls flat.
As for the "if you were born....." here vs. there argument, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, other than to point out that those folks in other countries aren't atheists, either?
What's most distressing about the circumstantial faith of Christianity is that it teaches that the poor little girl born a Muslim Yemen is doomed to eternal torture in hell for rejecting Yeshua.
Perhaps, you'd be better served being distressed about YOUR odds, especially given all the gods you mentioned. ALL of them have to be non-existence or you (and your skeptic brethren) got some 'splanin' to do.
The same, numerically speaking, would apply to me. But, given what I've studied and learned, I'll put my money on the Almighty God, described in the Bible.
I didn't notice anyone playing a percentage game.
You were one of the folks who started it, claiming that Christians and atheists are "closer than you think", with the difference being that the atheist simply believes in one less god. Again, it's not an issue of believing in one out of 1000, or 10000, or 100,000 vs. believing in 0 out of 1000, or 10000, or 100,000. It's simply: Either you believe in a deity or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist; if you do, you're not an atheist.
-
Exactly!! Their claims that Christians are atheists fall flat, for one simple reason (which, for some reason, has rubbed them the wrong way): Atheism is defined, per the Webster's dictionary, as the doctrine that there is NO DEITY.
Our skeptic buddies keep trying to play this percentage game, claiming that Christians believe in 1 deity out of 5000, 10000, or another large number of deities; whereas they believe in no dieties at all. Therefore, the difference between 0.00000000001 and 0.000000000 is insignficant enough to the point that we believers can be called atheists.
The problem is (and I don't know why Columbus, Pole, and MMC are bothered by it) the issue isn't a percentage thing. It's an either/or thing. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. That's like saying (since this is a bodydbuilding site, I'll use this example) that Shawn Ray and Samir Bannout have both enter 15 Mr. Olympia contests. Both of their Olympia-winning percentages are so low, that the difference is insignificant. Therefore you can say that Samir Bannout never won the Mr. Olympia.
But, whenever a magazine does a roll-call on all the past Mr. Os, Bannout's name is on the list and that of Shawn Ray is not. Why is that? Simply this:
All it takes is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia champion. It doesn't matter if Bannout entered 100 Mr. Olympias and lost 99 of them. All he needs is ONE WIN to be a Mr. Olympia Champion. Conversely, Shawn Ray has placed top-5 at all but one of his multiple Olympia appearance. But, he's never placed FIRST.
One out of ten; one out of 100, one out of 1000; it doesn't matter. One win is all it takes to be Mr. Olympia.
If you prefer football analogies, look at John Elway. Prior to 1997, people always harped on the fact that he lost three Super Bowls and the franchise for which he placed lost four. The Buffalo Bills lost four as did the Minnesota Vikings. Well, guess what happened in Super Bowl XXXII: Elway and the Broncos finally got a Super Bowl win. All of a sudden, nobody talked about how many SBs the Brocons and Elway lost. All that mattered was that ONE win. The Broncos would win another title. But, to win two titles, you first have to win ONE.
Same goes for the Christians-are-atheists thing. To be an atheist (by Webster's definition, a standardized neutral one) you must believe in NO deities, whatsover, NONE. If you believe in just ONE, the others in which you don't believe have no bearing and don't matter. If you believe in just one, as is the case if you're a Christian, you are NOT and atheist, period.
Don't you find it funny that "enlightened" men like Dawkins can't seem to grasp the most simplistic and basic of concepts, Loco?
;D
Yes, MCWAY, I do find that funny! Great post! ;D
-
As a favor to me and others in this conversation can you please keep your posts shorter and more concise?
Atheism can be defined in a number of ways.
So, what exactly am I allegedly denying, as it relates to these deities: Their existence? Their might?
Yes. Don't make this more complicated that it needs to be.
A mere assumption on your part, and a somewhat inaccurate one, at that. A non-believer, if you will, is just that. They believe in NO deity. Last time I checked, one is greater than zero, and Christians believe in a deity. So, regardless of what term you use, your claim falls flat.
This was pretty clearly not my intent.
As for the "if you were born....." here vs. there argument, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, other than to point out that those folks in other countries aren't atheists, either?
The point being that you don't believe in any gods but your own. Your belief in that god is due to the time and nature of your upbringing. If you were born in a different place or time your god would be as irrelevant as zeus is to you today.
You were one of the folks who started it, claiming that Christians and atheists are "closer than you think", with the difference being that the atheist simply believes in one less god.
Regardless of our motives, neither atheists and christians believe in the thousands of other ancient or modern gods. That is their similarity, that is all I stated.
-
The point being that you don't believe in any gods but your own. Your belief in that god is due to the time and nature of your upbringing. If you were born in a different place or time your god would be as irrelevant as zeus is to you today.
That's funny!! People believed in the same God in which I believed 2000 years ago. And they believed in God in such places as Rome and Greece.
I get your point that the odds of my believing in God are greater in a country, where Christianity is the official (and dominant) religion. Then again, according to the Old Testament, it didn't take Israel long, before they started worshipping other gods (and they had the Ten Commandments, hot off the presses, so to speak).
-
... then health is a disease.
Discuss.
:D
your thread starts with a fallacy...
IF??
;)
thats like me saying " jesus sucked my cock last nite prove me wrong or free will is a disease" :-\