Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mike do you find certain religions to be less abhorrent than others? Like does a religions like Taoism bother you less than a strict monotheistic hierarchy like Lutheranism.   "Abhorrent" IMO applies more to actions than to beliefs. I consider Islam to be an abhorrent religion because of the actions that follow from the doctrines. Lutheranism (or Calvinism, for that matter) is a little better, but still allows to justify genocide, persecution of heretics or apostates etc.. Taoism is probably relatively benign, or in other words: It's difficult to spin its "tenets" into a recipe for violent actions. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible ... Buddhism is also in principle peaceful, but there are historical example of militant Buddhists. http://tribune.com.pk/story/75926/christian-woman-gets-death-sentence-for-blasphemy/ Now, this is a good example of "abhorrent". And considering the new blasphemy laws in Ireland and also Austria: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010102111936/editorial/world-opinion-and-editorial/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-charged-with-hate-speech.html Welcome to Eurabia ... the slippery slope from "we must protect people from being offended" to a theocratic totalitarian regime. I was just wondering. I have a friend who is just troubled by people's belief in a higher power irregardless of actions. He can't stand it. He doesn't see a difference between devoutly religious and casually religious. Any admission of a sort of higher power he finds equally troubling. Was just wondering where you stood.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mike do you find certain religions to be less abhorrent than others? Like does a religions like Taoism bother you less than a strict monotheistic hierarchy like Lutheranism.   "Abhorrent" IMO applies more to actions than to beliefs. I consider Islam to be an abhorrent religion because of the actions that follow from the doctrines. Lutheranism (or Calvinism, for that matter) is a little better, but still allows to justify genocide, persecution of heretics or apostates etc.. Taoism is probably relatively benign, or in other words: It's difficult to spin its "tenets" into a recipe for violent actions. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible ... Buddhism is also in principle peaceful, but there are historical example of militant Buddhists. http://tribune.com.pk/story/75926/christian-woman-gets-death-sentence-for-blasphemy/ Now, this is a good example of "abhorrent". And considering the new blasphemy laws in Ireland and also Austria: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010102111936/editorial/world-opinion-and-editorial/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-charged-with-hate-speech.html Welcome to Eurabia ... the slippery slope from "we must protect people from being offended" to a theocratic totalitarian regime. I was just wondering. I have a friend who is just troubled by people's belief in a higher power irregardless of actions. He can't stand it. He doesn't see a difference between devoutly religious and casually religious. Any admission of a sort of higher power he finds equally troubling. Was just wondering where you stood.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mike do you find certain religions to be less abhorrent than others? Like does a religions like Taoism bother you less than a strict monotheistic hierarchy like Lutheranism.   "Abhorrent" IMO applies more to actions than to beliefs. I consider Islam to be an abhorrent religion because of the actions that follow from the doctrines. Lutheranism (or Calvinism, for that matter) is a little better, but still allows to justify genocide, persecution of heretics or apostates etc.. Taoism is probably relatively benign, or in other words: It's difficult to spin its "tenets" into a recipe for violent actions. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible ... Buddhism is also in principle peaceful, but there are historical example of militant Buddhists. http://tribune.com.pk/story/75926/christian-woman-gets-death-sentence-for-blasphemy/ Now, this is a good example of "abhorrent". And considering the new blasphemy laws in Ireland and also Austria: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010102111936/editorial/world-opinion-and-editorial/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-charged-with-hate-speech.html Welcome to Eurabia ... the slippery slope from "we must protect people from being offended" to a theocratic totalitarian regime.

I was just wondering. I have a friend who is just troubled by people's belief in a higher power irregardless of actions. He can't stand it. He doesn't see a difference between devoutly religious and casually religious. Any admission of a sort of higher power he finds equally troubling.

Was just wondering where you stood.

Ok.

The T wrote: You're all so insecure... Specially the little bigots who cry "delusion" and need the internet to prove their manhood... Poor little creeps who are probably peeping toms for women since they probably can't get off their computer chairs to go live in a normal world... Mike and Ivan have had a sometimes war-like argument here but both are reasonable people... but when post-pubescent waste like Nightshine appears, the forum becomes a sanctuary for idiocy....

That is wisdom...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Now, back to topic Yes it's pointless, live and let live guys. Have you ever seen in Prog Archives a thread started by some religious members to discredit atheism and ask them to prove God doesn't exist? No. And in your opinion that means that as long as you're not criticizing atheism, atheists are not allowed to criticize religion? Sorry, that's not how *anything* works.  No Mike, again you are taking my reply out of context, what I say is that you and others have claimed that we have to prove that God exists...Hell no, we didn't started this, our beliefs are ours and we don't have to prove anything to you or anybody as much as you don't have to prove us that God doesn't exist. We don't start this, we don't attack you, we only defend our position, so if somebody has to be blamed for this threads, is not us, the ones that start this threads to question our beliefs are the atheists.

It's not relevant who started a thread or a discussion. We all start from a position where there are no claims at all ... then someone makes a positive claim. Atheism is not a positive claim, it is the response to a positive claim. We reject Theism - it's as simple as that. Whoever makes a positive claim has the burden of proof.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Iván wrote: I have never seen one, the only religious thread is the Christian Thread (in which I didn't posted at all), but it wasn't started to attack anybody's beliefs or disbeliefs. All this threads have been started by non believers, we are only defending our position when we received attacks or mockery. Sure. I'm attacking religion. I'm also mocking it - which isn't hard to do, considering all the ridiculous claims. No argument here.  hat's my whole point, but you make mockery of us without a single piece of evidence that proves God doesn't exist, in other words, you make mockery of something you don't know if exists or not, and then you dare to claim that we must proof that God exists.

You don't have a single credible piece of evidence that not only "a god" exists, but that "your God" exists. Until you present some objective evidence to that effect, I refuse to believe. You're free to continue to believe without that evidence, but as soon as you claim that your position is as reasonable as mine, I will point out that you believe in something without good reason, and I don't. It's you who takes the leap of faith, not me.

Iván wrote: Mike, again, we have to prove nothing, we didn't started this, you are the ones that claim that our beliefs are false, so the burden of the proof rests on you.

I have presented good reasons for claiming that the Christian system is false - and I stand by that. When it comes to the existence of any gods, I'm an agnostic Atheist ... I don't claim to absolutely know that no gods exist. I simply think that it's very unlikely. The best reason is that as science advances, little by little all the areas where theologians suspected divine intervention are attributed to natural processes.

Iván wrote: The day we start a thread and say "Hey, Atheists are stupid because they claim something that can't be proven", then you can ask us to give evidence of the existence of God, the ones that make the claims have to support you, you are the ones who claim that we are stupid, delusional or ignorant (depending of which of you makes the claim), so you have to prove why we are stupid, delusional and ignorant proving God doesn't exist...as simple as that.

Sorry, but we simply call you on your claim.

BTW: Ignorant? Are you misunderstanding the term "argument from ignorance" again? But yes, I think that often Theists are forced to be ignorant of scientific facts because otherwise they would have to admit that their belief is false. Young earth creationists are a good example ... they claim that our planet is 6-10 thousand years old, so whenever they are presented with incontrovertible evidence, like carbon dating, stalagtites, plate tectonics, dna generations etc. they can either be honest and drop their faith or continue believing a lie.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Iván wrote: I'm sure that few will believe me, but I don't care who believes in God or not, before this threads (all started by atheists who want to discredit religion). I never talked about God except when i voiced my position against Christian Prog as a weapon of evangelism. We never asked anybody "Hey prove us God doesn't exist", but we are asked to prove that God exists..Why? Come on now, you often responded with something like "prove to me that it doesn't exist, and maybe I'll accept your standpoint". BTW: Look up 1 Peter 3-15. It is your duty as a Christian to provide logical reasons for your belief.  Mike you say it well, WE RESPOND...This means by definition we are answering to a claim you made, and again who makes a claim is the one who has to prove it.

A nice attempt at legal trickery. But that would put you in an infinite regress. Sorry, but there are claims, and rejections of claims, and if any rejection was a claim just like the one it objects to, we would end up shifting the burden of proof around for all eternity.

Consider the following claim:

"There are unicorns"

Now, if some people start believing in that claim, and at one point someone starts a thread "AUnicornism vs. Unicornism ... is it settled?", then would you honestly say that it is up to the one who started the thread and rejects the claim that Unicorns exist to actually demonstrate that there are none?

Iván wrote: Now about 1 Peter 3:15, it says: 1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version) 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, Most of us keepour beliefs in our hearts, ad we are ready to respond that we have this belief because of faith..But again, if you make a claim that we are delusional, you need to give solid and incontrovertible evidence that our beliefs are a delusion, and that you can't

Well, if you really think that the Eucharist turns into the actual flesh of Christ when you eat it ... I hope you're not a vegetarian.

Any silly claim *could* be true ... that's why I keep mentioning analogies to Unicorns and teapots. The problem is that when you adopt a position of "I believe until proven wrong" then you really don't have any basis for rejecting anything - you are forced to believe all kinds of nonsense. If you don't happen to believe all kinds of nonsense then I would say that "believing until proven wrong" is *not* how you go about in daily life.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Iván wrote: Why can each of us believe or disbelieve in what he/she wants? Iván You can - nobody's stopping you. At the same time, I can point out that IMO religion is utter nonsense - it's vile, pernicious, poisonous, false, manipulative and dangerous crap. You're free to take offense ... and at that point a discussion can take place.  Now again, you are making a claim..Religion is nonsense and rpa....You have to support that claim with evidence and you don't have it.

Turns water into wine. Zombies wandered around Jerusalem. Three days in the belly of a big fish and then got resurrected.

I rest my case.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: You're free to believe the exact opposite, but "live and let live" in that post-modern sense that every opinion is somehow equally valid is absurd. There are objective reasons that point towards whether a religious claim is likely to be true, or false. Based on those objective reasons we can say that we not only believe that religion is nonsense, but we are also confident that we have better reasons for coming to this conclusion than you have for reaching the opposite conclusion. I think that this is where your anger is coming from ... we (rational atheists) claim that we win this argument, and rightly so.  Yes, you can say religion is nonsense...But if you make that claim YOU AND ONLY YOU have to support it with evidence. And we don't have to give you an opposite position as long as you don't give us evidence othat your claims are 100% truth. That's all. Iván

My claim is that there's not enough evidence to accept your position. I refuted all the evidence you presented - except for claims that are unfalsifiable, which for the same reason aren't valid arguments. As it stands, I don't have to give you anything. Again, present some objective reasons why your claim is true and that of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists isn't - that would be a start, but you can't even do that.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - November 12 2010 at 10:57

The T wrote: Tony R wrote: Sharia is a definite no-no. We want no gender apartheid, no ghettoes, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate…” is that really hate speech? Europe is collapsing under its own civilized mind...

Actually political corectness is an American invention


Edited by harmonium.ro - November 12 2010 at 10:44

You're all so insecure... Specially the little bigots who cry "delusion" and need the internet to prove their manhood... Poor little creeps who are probably peeping toms for women since they probably can't get off their computer chairs to go live in a normal world...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Mike do you find certain religions to be less abhorrent than others? Like does a religions like Taoism bother you less than a strict monotheistic hierarchy like Lutheranism.

"Abhorrent" IMO applies more to actions than to beliefs. I consider Islam to be an abhorrent religion because of the actions that follow from the doctrines. Lutheranism (or Calvinism, for that matter) is a little better, but still allows to justify genocide, persecution of heretics or apostates etc.. Taoism is probably relatively benign, or in other words: It's difficult to spin its "tenets" into a recipe for violent actions. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible ... Buddhism is also in principle peaceful, but there are historical example of militant Buddhists.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/75926/christian-woman-gets-death-sentence-for-blasphemy/

Now, this is a good example of "abhorrent". And considering the new blasphemy laws in Ireland and also Austria:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010102111936/editorial/world-opinion-and-editorial/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-charged-with-hate-speech.html

Welcome to Eurabia ... the slippery slope from "we must protect people from being offended" to a theocratic totalitarian regime.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Now, back to topic Yes it's pointless, live and let live guys. Have you ever seen in Prog Archives a thread started by some religious members to discredit atheism and ask them to prove God doesn't exist? No. And in your opinion that means that as long as you're not criticizing atheism, atheists are not allowed to criticize religion? Sorry, that's not how *anything* works.