The Less than Amazing Atheist

[Artful Revealer]

@DevaWolf

Is there a rationality to our Universe?

 

[Artful Revealer]

Amazing!

Totally agree that this 80 IQ hatheist is less than amazing.

That said, Craig is right when he calls New Atheism a philosophical mess. Dawkins' God Delusion is what sent me in the direction of religion. It was that bad. If you watch the debates between Dawkins and John Lennox, or Sam Harris and William Craig, it's really painful to witness how these atheist apologists get wreeeecked, as TJ would call it, struggling with concepts and completely unable to recognize logical objections.

I would definitely recommend people to watch aforementioned debates and come to your own conclusions.

 

[Artful Revealer]

I'm not a Muslim Strange remark.

You believe in the perfect preservation of the Quran, but also believe Jesus is the biggest false messiah. Hmmm .... What could you possibly be ....

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I would always like to know why this is the warning the serpent gave. We know good and evil, and apparently God didn't want us to. Why?

I think that question reveals the fact that you are a thinking person. Why indeed would God put something in the centre of a perfect creation that could lead to it‘a fall? It leads to lots of other interesting questions on good and evil though...

Is it possible for something to be good if it is the only choice?

and related:-

Can you know good and evil without ever choosing evil? This interests me as clearly the angels who never sinned know of both good and evil.

Perhaps the serpent was suggesting that the only way to know anything is by experience?

Anyway, the best book I ever read exploring this question was Perelandra by C.S. Lewis (in case anyone in interested ;-)

 

[shankara]

Perhaps the serpent was suggesting that the only way to know anything is by experience?

You might be onto something there. In which case the "fall" was something entirely intended, liberating us from the false garden of the Demiurge. Of course with struggle and sacrifice we can return to such a state of innocence, without the demiurge's tyranny.

 

[Aero]

This is like punching downward.

Take a shot at Nietzsche if you want to prove your philosophical chops.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

You might be onto something there. In which case the "fall" was something entirely intended, liberating us from the false garden of the Demiurge. Of course with struggle and sacrifice we can return to such a state of innocence, without the demiurge's tyranny.

I find it interesting that the same line of thinking is used to justify the “trying” of all forms of foolishness, from Morris Dancing to Heroin!!!

 

[Tidal]

Also there is enough food in the world to feed everyone by a long way, the problem is with the way it is distributed, i.e. capitalism.

The main problem is that third world men in arid countries can't keep their flies zipped up and their women can't keep their legs together, it's not rocket science..

 

[shankara]

I find it interesting that the same line of thinking is used to justify the “trying” of all forms of foolishness, from Morris Dancing to Heroin!!!

Well yeah, the serpent is also a tempter, that's the other side of the thing.

The main problem is that third world men in arid countries can't keep their flies zipped up and their women can't keep their legs together, it's not rocket science..

Or they don't use artificial contraceptives as much as people in Western countries. A cultural problem. When it comes to sexual debauchery the Occident is way ahead of the rest of the world... Better to produce children than other things one can do...

 

[Tidal]

When it comes to sexual debauchery the Occident is way ahead of the rest of the world...

Yeah that's why Thai brides are so popular, not that i'd ever want to import one myself.
Anyway I can't afford the asking price.
(I wonder if Russian brides are cheaper, I could go over there and marry one, then before flying back to England we could honeymoon in Russia and take in romantic sights like the Stalingrad Tractor Factory, the Kursk anti-tank ditches and the Red Oktober Tank Works..)

 

[shankara]

Yeah that's why Thai brides are so popular, not that i'd ever want to import one myself.
Anyway I can't afford the asking price.
(I wonder if Russian brides are cheaper, I could go over there and marry one, then before flying back to England we could honeymoon in Russia and take in romantic sights like the Stalingrad Tractor Factory, the Kursk anti-tank ditches and the Red Oktober Tank Works..)

Well I'm no expert on different countries' sexual habits, but so far as I can tell from things like music videos the West seems to have a lot less sexual modesty than other parts of the world. Ok, yeah, there is Thailand, but the same kind of things go on here as well.

 

[Lyfe]

EDIT: Accidentally posted previous comment with second one.



So do all other religions (tell people to turn from sin), what's so special about yours? Well of course there is the assurance of "guaranteed salvation". Seriously Christians are not persecuted, if you look at the Yanqui evangelicals it's them who are doing the persecuting. i.e. favouring neoliberal policies etc. Well, that's what I understand from one person I encountered on here, who I take to be pretty much representative of the US evangelical thing.



Yes, people disagreeing with you, that really constitutes persecution. In fact Christians have a lot of political power and influence, it's the poor and marginalized people of the developing world who are really suffering at the hands of tyrants. And who are also, I would say, living more Christ-like lives than those of the majority of Christians.

All other religions tell people to turn from sin?

If anything many of them downplay the severity and consequences of sin especially new age beliefs. They have no real solution for sin either.... Heck some teach that sin doesn't even exist.


Btw...

I used to attend a church that would go out and evangelize. Trust me, the world hates the Jesus and Christianity. Watch how many of your friends and family renounce you after giving your life to him. Carnal man would likely protest anything spiritual, yes, but especially anything that tells them if they don't repent and turn from their sin that God will judge them and their eventual destination is the lake of fire. The world welcomes and tolerates the state of Christianity right now, but its not even true Biblical Christianity. They are dead churches with unconverted souls that need to be born again...

 

[elsbet]

I find it interesting that the same line of thinking is used to justify the “trying” of all forms of foolishness, from Morris Dancing to Heroin!!!

Morris dancing..?

Ok... google advised. Understood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All other religions tell people to turn from sin?

If anything many of them downplay the severity and consequences of sin especially new age beliefs. They have no real solution for sin either.... Heck some teach that sin doesn't even exist.

I think morality can be a pseudo-objective thing. And the "pseudo" part is only there because we'ld have to establish a subjective baseline.

As Sam Harris always says, clearly morality is very much connected and related to the well-being and avoidable suffering of sentient creatures, humans in particular.

Once we agree and understand that, it seems that rational reasoning in combination with knowledge of the world (to help understand / predict the consequences of actions and decisions) should be enough to make moral evaluations.

In the end, if we agree on the baseline (good = increasing well-being, bad = increasing avoidable suffering), employ valid reasoning and if we have access to the same knowledge - we should all pretty much be able to come to the same conclusions concerning moral judgements.

We'ld be able to end up in a place where when 2 people disagree on wheter a certain thing is good or bad, that one of them will be incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that question reveals the fact that you are a thinking person. Why indeed would God put something in the centre of a perfect creation that could lead to it‘a fall? It leads to lots of other interesting questions on good and evil though...

Is it possible for something to be good if it is the only choice?

and related:-

Can you know good and evil without ever choosing evil? This interests me as clearly the angels who never sinned know of both good and evil.

Perhaps the serpent was suggesting that the only way to know anything is by experience?

Anyway, the best book I ever read exploring this question was Perelandra by C.S. Lewis (in case anyone in interested ;-)

What's particularly wrong with it according to "your version"?

"all humans are hell-bound because god decided it to be so "

Essentially the story of the fall, isn't it?
In a literal reading, 2 humans disobeyed. In a more metaphorical reading, a population/culture disobeyed.
As a result, God doomed mankind and kicked them out of the garden. This ultimately puts them in need of a saviour, right?

It is God that did that. He made the decision. He could have decided otherwise. He could have limited the doom to just them and not their innocent off spring. He could have just forgiven them then and their instead of thousands of years later through a long melodramatic snuff show.

I'm just saying... it was his decision, right? And god is an agent that can make free decisions, not some deterministic force that theoretically can be described in a single equation, correct?

"all those who believe he exists and accepts that his sacrificial scapegoat suicide saved them from the punishment he himself designed"

So this saviour is Jesus, who's god son and who's also god himself somehow. So his life gets sacrificed for the sins of mankind, and if you as a human accept this sacrifice then this somehow absolves your from the doom over your head, put there by god - or Jesus, if you will. Almost like the breaking of a spell or enchantment.

The doom is off course designed by this god. As creator of all, he also designed the eternal torture chambers (literal or figurative) where the souls that were doomed by him will dwell forever and ever.


So which of these would you disagree with and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now if this god of yours would've just added some neat thing in there that you couldn't have possibly known about... like something about my kids or a meeting I'ld have later this week or something.

Now that would really honestly make me take a step back and say "...WOW..."
SO many ways that this could've been mighty impressive. But alas....

Instead, you slammed me with the most stereotypical old generic "come join my club" advertisement you could think of it seems.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Now if this god of yours would've just added some neat thing in there that you couldn't have possibly known about... like something about my kids or a meeting I'ld have later this week or something.

Now that would really honestly make me take a step back and say "...WOW..."
SO many ways that this could've been mighty impressive. But alas....

Instead, you slammed me with the most stereotypical old generic "come join my club" advertisement you could think of it seems.

Dear @TagliatelliMonster

You and I have doubtless read menu threads where Christians do their best to explain the Gospel while atheists and anti-theists do their best to attempt to make it sound silly.

If there is no God, even the most exquisitely argued “god” of the collective imagination has no more substance than air, and any reasoning on that premise would be futile.

I have come to the conclusion that if there is truly a God (and after nearly 40 years as a Christian, I have experienced far too much to doubt Him now) whatever His plan might be for the universe, I am not in the position to critique Him. The Book of Job explores our position relative to God very well.

Spoiler: Job 42

Job’s Repentance and Restoration
42 Then Job answered the Lord and said:

2 “I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

Make your choice and stand by it. I would hate for anyone I had interacted with to miss out on a restored relationship with God, not to mention eternal joy, but free will means the ultimate choice is in your hands.

Ray Winstone puts it so well...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dear @TagliatelliMonster

You and I have doubtless read menu threads where Christians do their best to explain the Gospel while atheists and anti-theists do their best to attempt to make it sound silly.

If there is no God, even the most exquisitely argued “god” of the collective imagination has no more substance than air, and any reasoning on that premise would be futile.

I have come to the conclusion that if there is truly a God (and after nearly 40 years as a Christian, I have experienced far too much to doubt Him now) whatever His plan might be for the universe, I am not in the position to critique Him. The Book of Job explores our position relative to God very well.

Make your choice and stand by it. I would hate for anyone I had interacted with to miss out on a restored relationship with God, not to mention eternal joy, but free will means the ultimate choice is in your hands.

Ray Winstone puts it so well...

The way you invoke "faith" here, it doesn't mean the same thing as when "faith" is invoked in the religious sense. So this argument is invalid.

What you are talking about here, is rather trust based on evidence. Suppose I am to run my first marathon for which I trained hard. I know my body - I experience it everyday. I can give a reasonable estimate of my abilities. Based on my training and my experience with my body, I might trust that I'm capable of completing the marathon.

Note that this is not an expression of certainty. I might not succeed after all.

Faith in the religious sense however, IS an expression of certainty. It is (blind) belief. To believe something = to accept as true. And religious faith, is blind. ie: without independently verifiable evidence.


To mix the different meanings of words like this, is not a very honest way to argue.

For example:

"I assume life exists elsewhere in the universe"

vs

"I assume undetectable angels follow us a round and protect us from evil"


The first is a far more reasonable assumption then the second one.
We know of at least one planet where life exists, so clearly is possible and well within the limits of physical law.
For the second one however, we require additional assumptions about what kind of beings can exist - beings for which we have no evidence, nore any precedents at all.

Right out the gates, it's easy to show how a reasonable assumption defers from blind religious faith.

Sure, you can express both ideas prefixed with the words "i assume...". And that's right up your ally, right? Words that can be used in different contexts in which they have rather different meanings or implications, which allows you to toy with them as if they mean the same thing.

I don't self-label as a materialist either. Because I can't possible know what I don't know.
To say that "the physical is all that exists", necessarily needs to appeal to knowledge that I do not have.

So instead, I say "the physical is all that can be shown to exist" It is all that we, presently, know exists. I'ld say the same about the natural.

Everything we observe is natural. That doesn't mean there aren't unnatural (or "supernatural") things. It also certainly doesn't mean that there are, however. And since there is no reason to believe that there are, I don't.

I believe the physical exists.
I don't know if something "other" then that also exists.
And I certainly have no reason to believe so.
Not observing any "other" things, is certainly an argument in favor of not believing other things exist. But it isn't conclusive, because perhaps tomorrow we will observe those "other" things. And I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But presently, I don't even have reason to believe that the bridge exists.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The way you invoke "faith" here, it doesn't mean the same thing as when "faith" is invoked in the religious sense. So this argument is invalid.

What you are talking about here, is rather trust based on evidence. Suppose I am to run my first marathon for which I trained hard. I know my body - I experience it everyday. I can give a reasonable estimate of my abilities. Based on my training and my experience with my body, I might trust that I'm capable of completing the marathon.

Note that this is not an expression of certainty. I might not succeed after all.

Faith in the religious sense however, IS an expression of certainty. It is (blind) belief. To believe something = to accept as true. And religious faith, is blind. ie: without independently verifiable evidence.


To mix the different meanings of words like this, is not a very honest way to argue.

For example:

"I assume life exists elsewhere in the universe"

vs

"I assume undetectable angels follow us a round and protect us from evil"


The first is a far more reasonable assumption then the second one.
We know of at least one planet where life exists, so clearly is possible and well within the limits of physical law.
For the second one however, we require additional assumptions about what kind of beings can exist - beings for which we have no evidence, nore any precedents at all.

Right out the gates, it's easy to show how a reasonable assumption defers from blind religious faith.

Sure, you can express both ideas prefixed with the words "i assume...". And that's right up your ally, right? Words that can be used in different contexts in which they have rather different meanings or implications, which allows you to toy with them as if they mean the same thing.

I don't self-label as a materialist either. Because I can't possible know what I don't know.
To say that "the physical is all that exists", necessarily needs to appeal to knowledge that I do not have.

So instead, I say "the physical is all that can be shown to exist" It is all that we, presently, know exists. I'ld say the same about the natural.

Everything we observe is natural. That doesn't mean there aren't unnatural (or "supernatural") things. It also certainly doesn't mean that there are, however. And since there is no reason to believe that there are, I don't.

I believe the physical exists.
I don't know if something "other" then that also exists.
And I certainly have no reason to believe so.
Not observing any "other" things, is certainly an argument in favor of not believing other things exist. But it isn't conclusive, because perhaps tomorrow we will observe those "other" things. And I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But presently, I don't even have reason to believe that the bridge exists.

Unfortunately you are at present doing a decent job of tying yourself into a philosophical straitjacket. You are not the first and won’t be the last.

I believe in some things based on experience, others based on reason and still others in faith. God wants us to have the faith of Abraham but will meet us if we only have the search for evidence of Thomas.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unfortunately you are at present doing a decent job of tying yourself into a philosophical straitjacket. You are not the first and won’t be the last.

I believe in some things based on experience, others based on reason and still others in faith. God wants us to have the faith of Abraham but will meet us if we only have the search for evidence of Thomas.

The reason, one of them anyway, why "personal experience" isn't sufficient is precisely because it is not something one can simply trust.

Just to illustrate... the closed psychiatric wings in hospitals are filled with people who had "personal experiences" that aren't provable / demonstrable / verifiable.

You can be very wrong about what you think you've experienced, as I'm sure you know and realise.
The question is: how do you find out if you're wrong about it, if not through some form of testability?