Comments by clearthinker
1. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #234517 by clearthinker on August 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I thought the fact that people were atheists was irrelevant to how they lead, just as much as if they have a moustache is irrelevant to how they lead. Or at least that is what we are always told when great atheist leaders of the past are mentioned.....I guess Grayling can have his cake and eat it...
Personally I could not care whether Millibrand is an atheist or not. I vote for a politician - not because they are an 'a' anything but because of what they stand for. So far he seems to stand for war in Iraq, more market capitalism and more spin. Do you really want atheism to be associated with that?
2. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227125 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 11:32 am
Steve (this really is the last time)....I do not separate natural and spiritual completely. I stand by both statements. Please feel free to debate them elsewhere. And yes I can learn from the mistakes and from the right things from an atheist. All truth is Gods truth. That does not mean it is confined to those who profess to be Christians.
Back to the debate/book festival. If you really want an alternative point of view then why not come to the alternative Edinburgh book festival (which is now so very Establishment). Yours truly will be speaking at the West Port book festival in Edinburgh at 1pm at one of their venues - (I think it is called Edinburgh books). The more atheists the merrier. Perhaps Jamcam could bus them in and a better show could be had than today?
3. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227120 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 11:25 am
Decius - I am not off topic. In case you hadn't noticed it was Dawkins who brought up the Hitch/Lennox debate and told us all that he was going up to Edinburgh two days early so that he would enjoy Hitch hanging Lennox - and also to compare the different styles. Which is better - the Dawkins 'give him enough rope to hang himself' or the Hitch 'hang him anyway'? Actually that was a fair comment (apart from the assumption by RD that Lennox was obviously stupid enough to hang himself).
If you consider this off topic then I suggest you have a rethink. And a word with the Boss.
4. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227117 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
Jamcam,
What did you think of the debate? I obviously have a bias (as do you) but looking at it as objectively as I can, I was delighted with it. I had expected Hitchens to be much better and a much more difficult and experienced opponent. But Lennox more than matched him and in debating terms, clearly won (and I do not mean the vote). But what was your honest impression.
Mordacious - church buses? I guess you can't handle the thought that people turned up of their own accord, paid £10 and listened to the whole debate because they were interested? If they didn't support your boy then it MUST be because they are dumb sheep herded in by their pastors! Whereas the atheists were all freethinkers who came with open minds and were not there at all to support their man. Is this how the atheist fantasy world operates?
5. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227114 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 11:05 am
Modest atheist turn out? A Christian organised event? It was organised by the Edinburgh Book Festival and was part of it - indeed it was introduced by the chairperson - at which RD is speaking in a couple of days (although of course not debating). I guess RD needs to be aware that the Edinburgh Book Festival is a cover for a Christian event!) Yes Fixed Point Foundation were also involved but why would that affect the turnout?
Also that does not explain the large number of 'don't knows' before the debate and the fact that the majority of them ended up supporting Lennox.
By the way speaking of modest atheism - did any of you read about the atheist advertising campaign (on buses) in London which had to be cancelled, because the promoters could not get 4,000 people to give £5 each (not sure of the exact details but I think these were the stats I read). Is this true? Do atheists not care about getting out the message? Or are you just relying on being in positions of power?
Oh - and Steve - just this once (and I mean this) I will respond to your irrelevant question. If you want further comments and you are really interested please feel free to contact me privately - this is not what this thread is about. I think that spiritual death was a result of the Fall - I am also curious as to how the fall affected the rest of the environment - because I think it did. That does not contradict what I said in 2005. Of course my viewpoint will be immediately lampooned - but then I would expect that. Ducks quake, a Scottish summer has lots of rain and atheists automatically mock when anyone speaks of miracles, sin or the Fall. C'est la vie! (by the way - meant to say this before - love the hat!)
Now back to the debate about the debate.
6. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227108 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 10:43 am
Q - of course you are right. It was a gross generalisation. There are atheists who are prepared to discuss, think, reason, listen and actually engage with people. I meet with some regularly. However the tone of what I will call the 'militant atheists' who are now largely led by RD, is very different. TGD set the tone. Numerous columns, media interviews, tv programmes and the general tone and quality of the posts on this website are ample evidence for my contention.
As for the questions. Questioning is one thing. But making irrelevant accusations one after another is another. Steve has asked me my views on evolution and death before the fall. I have answered. When it comes to a thread that is on that particular topic then fine - lets discuss. But when the thread is on something different then I would suggest that we stick to the subject. Otherwise we will be back to Billy's fetish about the Pope!
7. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227095 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 10:14 am
Poor Steve, I would like to believe that an answer about how corruption came into the world would be appreciated but somehow I don't think so.... I guess one question gets answered and that leads you on to making another one. Mainly because of course they are not questions but accusations. You will seek to deflect any kind of criticism by ignoring the issues. As I have already told you I have no real problem with evolution. If it were true it would make no difference to my faith in God and yes I do believe that there was some form of death before the Fall, and I do believe there was a Fall. Now perhaps you might like to return to the subject in hand? Or if you really want to continue to discuss the fascinating topic of death you should perhaps start up a new thread. But to be fair to the moderator, RD and all those who actually want genuine debate about the subjects heading each thread perhaps you will forgive me if I ignore any further accusations/questions you might have to make on this particular thread.
I am off to lead a children's holiday camp on Monday - and as Sunday is my work day I guess I won't be able to respond for a week or so. But just thought you might like to know how the Hitch/Lennox debate went. And Allan you will be able to check it. I believe that Fixed Point Foundation recorded and have the rights to the whole thing. I also understand that they intend to offer it, unedited, to the general public. From a Christian perspective I would be absolutely delighted if that happens. It was a sweet victory!
8. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #227088 by clearthinker on August 9, 2008 at 9:58 am
Long live Dawkins....I can't listen to this drivel....Lennox should be shot. Glad to see that the oasis of clear thinking is keeping up its usual high standards of debate!
Anyway Richard wrote that he was looking forward to seeing Lennox hung by HItchens. Just got back from the debate in Edinburgh. Hitchens lost...and by some margin.
A brief summary. There were 1500 people present. On a vote being taken at the beginning a slight majority of people said they did not agree with the motion that the new Europe should prefer the new atheism. There were a significant number of don't knows.
Hitchens spoke first for 15 minutes. He was his usual self....witty, intelligent, occasionally shocking but he wasted his 15 minutes because he did not speak about the motion. He spoke about secularism and the church/state issue. As any atheist will tell you on this site - secularism and atheism are not the same thing.
Lennox then replied for 15 minutes and said that he basically agreed with Hitchens. He then went on to talk about how Europe was based on Christianity.
Then they each had five minutes rebuttal..followed by questions and summing up. HItchens did the old trick of not answering some of the questions and when he did not want to answer, pretended not to have heard (howls of laughter from his fans whenever he said this!). He also did not sum up but introduced a whole new series of information in his summing up - including his famous challenge (which is so easily answered that it is somewhat embarrassing that he continues to put this forth as a killer argument). Virtually every one of his main arguments was repeated verbatim from other debates. In fact he was not in good form at all.
The result was that the majority of don't knows then went to Lennox who won the vote and the debate quite comfortably (to be fair to Hitch he did concede graciously).
A couple of things that struck me about the whole event - apart from how easy it was for Lennox. Firstly it is clear that there are 'fundamentalists' on both sides who will never listen to what the others are saying. HItchens stock of cheap jibes, mockery and jokes play well with those from the atheist faith perspective (a bit like Ken Ham's play with some fundamentalist Christians) but he was clearly unprepared. Secondly I now understand why most atheist apologists prefer to preach to the converted or stick within the comfortable citadels of your own websites and group dynamics. You usually get hammered when you come out and try to logically reason with others who do not share your viewpoint. That is because for you it is not about logic, reason or seeking truth. You already know the truth. Everyone who disagrees with you is self evidently an idiot/liar,fool/not worth listening to. That is a good self defence for your own faith but it really does not impress in the wider world. Therefore when you come up against people like Lennox, who are prepared to listen, discuss and reason. you come across looking like fundamentalists.
I was also surprised by two things. Firstly how much I liked Hitchens. He struck me as an honest man whose defects are all up front and who has a real interest in what he is saying. Secondly how weak and repetitive his arguments were. He has a fantastic general knowledge, is a good speaker and very witty. But he lost this debate...no wonder that RD looked frustrated and angry through most of the debate. Perhaps you should just stick to writing, preaching to the choir and letting the fans on RD net know how right they are. The real world can be a dangerous place for those who are prepared to think.
It appears that in the great battle for the hearts and minds of the West the New atheists may have got their tactics wrong. Perhaps RD is right not to want to debate with 'fundamentalists' (ie. anyone who believes in the supernatural). You should stick to trying to impose your views without having the difficulty of people actually questioning and challenging you (a couple more tv series, control of education and keep selling through the media the myth that real intellectuals don't believe in God...and you might get somewhere!). I debated at the University of Cambridge a few months ago...much to my surprise, after the debate, the majority voted for the motion that there is a God. Theism and Christianity are alive and well at Britains top universities. The more strident and polemical RD and others are - the more we seem to gain. Keep up the good work!
Its been a good day!
Comment #212270 by clearthinker on July 17, 2008 at 12:32 am
"Incorrect. Whenever I listen to a debate it's always the faithful that resort to shouting and interrupting."
Shaden - you are clearly new to this site! Either that or you have very selective hearing. Why is it that, without having to read a single further post, I could manage to predict that this article would be swamped by evangelical atheists shouting and interrupting.?? Because it happens with everyone who dares to question the Faith...
10. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'
Comment #204682 by clearthinker on July 5, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The bottom line is that no child should be forced to pray, or to any religious act, to a a god they either do not believe in. By definition such a forced act cannot be worship and is insulting to both the believers and those compelled to do something they do not believe in.
Even as a 'demonstration' it is demeaning and insulting. The children were quite right.
11. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat
Comment #203909 by clearthinker on July 3, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Just a couple of brief comments...
The reason I know that most muslims in Dundee are unhappy at Mr Asifs remarks as a self appointed spokesperson is because it has been in the news here for days - many have written in to the local newspapers (the Courier and the Evening Telegraph) to point out that he does not speak for muslims. Plus my neighbours are muslim and we actually have good relations with the local mosques.
As regards the question of why the article was posted here perhaps you can enlighten me? Maybe there is a burning interest in Dundee on RD net or just maybe this was seen as another opportunity to remind the followers how Islam is stupid/evil and therefore all religion is stupid/evil? You tell me....
12. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat
Comment #203782 by clearthinker on July 3, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I live in Dundee and the story is basically true (although given the particular Daily Mail spin). Councillor Asif sits on the police board and he did complain and the police did apologise. The whole thing is ridiculous.
However that does not justify the reason that this article was posted here - to a) stigmatise all muslims (most Muslims in Dundee have been horrified at Asifs stupidity) and b) stigmatise all religoius people (and thus justify atheism). Ironically RD Net is following the well worn path of the Daily Mail - put out stories that are true, in order to outrage and reinforce your own prejudices. Its cheap and nasty but very effective.
13. A secular world is a sane world
Comment #200577 by clearthinker on June 27, 2008 at 11:37 pm
This reminds me of the kind of rant one gets from the BNP or any neo-facist group. An angry middle aged white man stares to camera and spouts irrational, emotive prejudice which only appeals to those who already share those prejudices. 'Islam needs to be neutralised' and of course then Christianity needs to be neutralised as Islam and Christianity are just the same. All religions need to be removed. Religion only exists for the clergy - they are maggots who are feeding off 'our' freedoms.
In the Brave New World of Atheist facism one can only shudder at the thought of what being 'neutralised' means. After all we have tried that before in Europe. As for Pats hysterical notion that athiests have been quiet and need to be more assertive - it would be hilarious if it was not so pathetic.
This video exemplifies precisely what is wrong with the new atheist fundamentalism. Ignorant, prejudiced, illogical, intolerant and a monologue. There is no need to engage in debate or dialogue when one know s that one is right. Just play the role of the angry middle aged white man. Pat is a preacher preaching to the converted. He is on a par with some Mullah ranting about Jihad and the evil West. The only difference is that his congregation are atheists and that they have more power than the Muslims.
Kram50 - I would love to see this video out in the public eye as well. In fact I intend to point as many people to it as possible (in the same way that I often point people to the racist drivel of the BNP) because it shows everyone else the irrationality, ignorance and prejudice of atheist fundamnetalism - unless of course you are already a True Believer.
14. Stop distorting young minds!
Comment #200111 by clearthinker on June 26, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Erm. No-one is suggesting indoctrinating children into anything. That is kind of the point.
Indeed - which is why we should be allowed to have Christian education because we do not believe that children should be indoctrinated.
Education must be secular because the state cannot take sides in intractable debates between which religion is right or support children being educated in a faith. You may believe you've God on your side, and your friendly suicide bomber for Allah may believe that too. But if the state favors one or the other, we end up with nice religious wars. Also, children need to understand their rights and duties in a state. Many religions would tell them they don't have the right to be gay, or have a healthy sex life for example. This is why all children need to be educated without favoring a belief. Needless to say, most faiths don't teach the truth about reality, such as there being no evidence for souls, or a creator God, etc. Torture often accompanies one side of a religious debate gaining the coercive force of the state, so it's best for all if education is secular.t
But the greatest debate is about whether there is a God or not. So why should the State take sides on that one? As for rights and duties - who determines them and on what basis? Eg Who determines what a 'healthy sex life ' is? And do you seriously believe that torture often accompanies one side of a religious belief? In fact what you have done is stated your belief and your philosophy and treated it as so self-evident that you cannot understand why everyone should not be indoctrinated in it. That is why I call some atheists fundamentalists. You have your 'fundamentals' that are so self-evidently right, that you do not even need to argue for them. You just insist they are right and, in this instance, should be the basis for the education of everyone - whether they agree with them or not. The irony is that you can state all that you state and then say 'children should be educated without favouring a belief', without seeing the irony! (which is of course that you want your belief to be favoured).
Blockquote text
15. Stop distorting young minds!
Comment #200106 by clearthinker on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Even by Graylings and Dawkins standards this is a new low. So the C of E and the Baptists are into cannibalism and sexual perversion, believe in aliens coming to earth and always threaten torture?
Its a cheap article, full of lies, prejudice and ignorance - which will only appeal to the Believers and those who share Graylings faith. He is getting pretty desperate when he has to resort to such lies, lack of logic and appeal to ignorance. His attempt to stir up outrage and hatred will succeed - but only to the detriment of our society.
As for the mantra that education MUST be secular - who says? Given that the number of atheists is a minority of the population why should my tax go to pay for the indoctrination of children into secularism? THe more this country has gone down the secular route the worse the education has become - which is why those who want their children to do well at school are desperate to get them into a C of E or Catholic school - even though they themselves are not believers. I object strongly to the uniformitarian ideal that all should get the same dumbed down secular education. The only thing that is worse is a secular state education for the poor (aka the USA) whilst the rich get to send their children to private schools (often religious).
Why not allow freedom and parental choice? Or is atheist fundamentalism so intolerant that it insists that only its view of education is valid?
Comment #197939 by clearthinker on June 23, 2008 at 1:12 am
The fact that so many books were written to refute that book shows how worried they are about it.
Tetra...I agree with your comments on this one. To borrow your language. Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes:
1. The continue to believe whatever they already believed.
2. They realize that their unexamined assumptions don't stack up.
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I don't see much chance of these books reaching across the aisle and convincing many people who are at least selectively rational already to become less rational. But as Richard says, what do I know?
17. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist
Comment #195589 by clearthinker on June 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm
the glee that the atheist evangelists feel at getting one convert.
I guess you can identify with that feeling.
Hi Alvorin. Actually no I can't. I don't have any atheist converts. In fact I don't have any converts at all. It is only God who can convert
The sign of a testosterone laden male, the bald head is the solar panel of a sex machine
Roland - Totally agree!
Your only "convert" as far as I can see has been Richard Morgan, and he was not exactly of the soundest mind.
Can you not engage with civility?
Goldy - can you not see that your own statement is self-contradictory. You ask people to engage with civility in the same breath as describing someone who defected from your camp as 'not of the soundest mind' (strange that you did not say that when he belonged to your faith). Is this your idea of civility?! By the way - I have no converts. That is the perogative of RD net and its 'converts corner'.
How would you know, you don't have the first clue as to what atheism is?
Philip- I'm learning. Atheism is, as I am often told on this site, simply the absence of belief in God. It is nothing else. It has no philosophical foundation, no morality, no meaning. It 'is' nothing. Just a negative.
o begin with, your post is unnecessarily long. To me, posts that are succinct are the most effective. Address the salient points, not *every* point.
Popalob - yes - you are right. And yet if I leave out any posts I get accused of not being able to answer, cutting and running etc. I am sure this will come up later. Meanwhile I will do you the courtesy of trying to deal with the most salient points and leave out as many as I can....on the understanding that you defend me when I am accused of not answering!
The atheist issue is with claiming something simply because "It is or I say so." It seems perfectly reasonable to demonstrate why something is claimed to be and so far, religion and its advocates seem unable to provide demonstration or evidence of their claims.
This of course is the key issue. But you assume too much. You assume that atheists do not behave in this way and you assume that science de facto supports atheism. Forgive me for saying this - but it ain't necessarily so. A great deal depends on what you mean by evidence.
On another book issue I once asked you for your opinion on the best "flea" book. You suggested Francis Collins The Languge of God. I followed your advice. Badly re-packaged C.S.Lewis and zilch of his own of any merit. I have never been so angry with a book.
I think you badly underestimate our genuine interest in evidence here. Your personal failure to deliver any is now legend. You have entirely squandered your opportunity with us. You should be ashamed.
Phil - why were you angry with Collins? He is a scientist. He believes in evolution and he thinks the evidence points to God. And so you were angry. Is this because he challenges your presuppositions and belief system?
I actually think I greatly overestimated your interest in evidence. You have already decided there is no evidence. Most of the atheists on here start off with the presupposition that there is no God - they then justify this with a philosophical position of empiricism and logical positivism - thus enabling them to rubbish any evidence. It is the ultimate in circular argument. Intelligent people know there is no God. If someone believes in God they cannot be intelligent and any evidence they offer is automatically stupid/lying/ignorant/unscientific (delete as appropriate).
another hit-and-run post? Once again you post the same old arguments without considering the refutations that others have made on other threads. On the off-chance that you do post here again, it will likely be only to announce that you're tired of this thread and won't be posting again. Then a few days later, the cycle will begin all over again. And you have the nerve to say that my debating style could use some pointers!
Q - Yes - here is one pointer. How about telling the truth? Because I do not immediately respond does not mean that I am hit and run. If you were not to post because it had already been posted on other threads then I suspect that most of this website would be silent!
You and MrGrath should be proud though frustrated at the number of converts for rationality and reason that you are responsible for.
Allan - well I would be very happy to take the credit for all those who have come to the rational and reasonable position that there is a God - (like Flew, Collins McGrath etc) but as I said above it is only God who converts.
Clearthinker ,you want rational discussion , you need to define which god you believe and why.
The God of the Bible. Jesus Christ. Because he is the truth. Actually I give ten reasons why I believe at the end of The Dawkins Letters. If you really want to know.
.
Vaal - I'm not surprised it exasperated you. The only problem is that it is not true. The Galileo myth for example was far more to do about Italian politics than it was religion or the Bible.
They just don't stand up, and despite the bayings of the Alistair McGraths and David Robertsons of this world, practically everybody on this site would welcome some real evidence of God(s), and if found would change their minds, which hardly makes us dogmatic. However, there is zero evidence.
What I find fascinating here is that in the one sentence you affirm that you are not dogmatic and then in the next statement, without a blush, you dogmatically declare 'there is zero evidence'!
The Universe looks just like it would if it was the result of entirely natural processes.
Oystein - good to hear from you and thanks for the interesting material about the fine tuning of the universe. I am most intrigued by this last sentence. How do you know what a 'natural process is? Surely if it is a natural process in this universe then that is of course precisely what it would look like. Do you accept the multi-verse theory? Do you agree with RD that you might already be dead in another universe? Or that you may exist in another one with a green moustache? What is the empirical evidence for this? Apart from mathematical equations what empirical evidence is there for the multi-verse theory?
On another tack - what kind of Christian were you before you converted? I apologise for just taking the article at its word without asking you. Did you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead? Did you believe that the Bible was the Word of God?
And finally .....(please note that I will be back but only when I get the time...and I will try to be good and not respond to every point...but then I will be accused of 'quote mining'....I don't know - its so hard to meet the demands of the irrational!)
Will you answer Steve? He's asked you many times, what is your position on evolution, do you accept the mountain of evidence that supports it?
Apathy - as I have already explained many times on this site I have no problem with evolution. I don't know enough about it but I do not see why it would make one difference to my faith. In my own church we have people who are old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists and even some young earth creationists - and we all get along fine. The bottom line is that we all believe that God is the Creator - we just differ about how he created. In fact I have just come back from a fellowship group where one man was shocked when I told him that I did not believe in a young earth.
18. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist
Comment #195229 by clearthinker on June 18, 2008 at 12:38 am
This is a very interesting article - as is the reaction to it - and the glee that the atheist evangelists feel at getting one convert.
As regards the article itself ....
profiled liberal Christian who defended his faith in articles and at debate
The term 'liberal Christian' seems to me an oxymoron. Does this mean a Christian who does not believe the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection etc? In what sense can they be called a Christian. It sounds as though he was converted from religion to atheism. Out of the frying pan into the fire.
But all this happened before he one Sunday in January this year heard a debate between the Atheist Christopher Hitchens and the theologian Alister McGrath.
Not quite the truth is it? He was not convinced by the intellectual rigour of Hitchens and his arguments. For a long period of time he had thought this but there was an emotional barrier - the Hitch gave him courage to overcome that. IN other words it was an emotional experience as much as an intellectual one.
The disappointment over the book "The Dawkins Delusion" by the same McGrath was one of the factors. In this book McGrath tries to rebut the Atheist Richard Dawkins' attack on faith in the book "The God Delusion".
I accept that McGrath's book is not his best - his Dawkins God is much better. However he does make some excellent points in the Dawkins Delusion and despite all the ridicule for him on this site, I have yet to hear anyone answer what he says. There are also a considerable number of other responses to TGD - one would hope that Elgaroy has read a little more widely. On the other side I know several athiests who have been disappointed by the weakness of the argumentation, the style, the tone and the emotionalism of TGD. Yet they have not lost their atheist faith.
It is irrational to hold on to something that simply is not the best explanation, and which has no empirical support.
This statement is partially true. It is irrational to believe in something that is not the best explanation and which has no empirical support. For example to explain the complexity and fine tuning of the universe TGD reverts to the theory that there are many universes, in one of which you already may be dead and in another you may have a green moustache. The notion that this is the best explanation with empirical support is hilarious! On the other hand Christianity is the best explanation for all that we see around us and does have plenty of empirical support.
The statement itself is also a statement of faith. Empiricism carries within itself a self contradiction. The self contradiction of logical positivism. The idea that you can only accept as the best explanation that which is emprical is itself an idea which is not empirical. In other words it is a faith statement upon which other positions are built.
Healing and miracles for example. As a scientist I can't believe that things like this happens now, and then it becomes difficult to believe that it might have happened 2000 years ago as well.
Ah - the old incredulity argument (I can't believe) combined with the argument from authority (I am a scientist). There are of course plenty scientists who have no difficulty in believing in miracles and there is no logical contradiction in accepting that an almighty God can work miracles. Of course if you start of from the presuppostion that there is no such God then it is not difficult to come to that conclusion.
How can Christians say that they are right and the others are wrong, when they don't have any empirical evidence to build upon?
The same way that atheists can say they are right and the others are wrong. As Plantinga puts it "if you insist that no one can detemine which beliefs are right and wrong, why should we believe what you are saying?"
As an example, it's not a problem that evil exists if everything around us is a result from natural processes that don't separate between good and evil.
No problem? This is not a very logical position. If everything is a result from natural processes that don't separate between good and evil then there is no evil. If there is no evil then there is no good. But we observe that good and evil do exist so where does that leave us?
He adds that he never really had any strong religious experiences as many other believers report they've had. Therefore, this has not been a loss for him either.
There was nothing to lose. Sadly.
This relativism that the liberal Christians are up to is just nonsense.
Amen.
It's very important for me that it's possible to have morality and ethics without God.
Given his empirical stance - it would be helpful to know what his morality is and what empirical evidence he can provide for it.
It felt natural.
Indeed - this is primarily an emotional conversion based upon feeling rather than the intellect.
And for some of the comments...
And that's not enough for me. As a scientist and astrophysicist I am used to rejecting hypotheses that don't cut it. That's what after a while made it hard for me to hold on to the hypothesis about God. I could not support it rationally, and realised in the end that I could not live with that there should be an exception for just this
Finally!
What I can't understand is why ALL so-called "scientists" with a creationist bias can't make this same simple connection.
Double Bass - maybe you don't get it because there are scientists who can support their faith rationally. You don't get it because you have already predetermined that that cannot be the case. Can I suggest that you read God's Universe by Porfessor Owen Gingerich - Professor of Astronomy at the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Harvard.
Dear Oystein -
Welcome back to reality.
Yours faithlessly
irate_atheist
Dear Oystein.
Welcome to the nightmare world of irate atheist.
Here you will discover why atheism just does not work - just as Christless Christianity does not work. I hope that one day you will wake up.
I'm used to hearing that Richard fails to address the most sophisticated arguments for religion (which are always only alluded to, but never spelled out, because they obviously don't exist), but I've never heard of these more sophisticated and precise arguments against religion, which apparently Richard and Hitchens have never heard of either. I wonder what they could be. Perhaps they are akin to the sophisticated arguments against fairies.
Friend - of course you have never heard of the sophisticated and precise arguments against religion. Thats because they don't exist. Atheism operates on myth and unsophisticated emotionalism and irrationality - as clearly evidenced by your comparison of God and fairies. To you that is a killer point (and like other parts of the somewhat limited atheist apologetic) are repeated ad nauseum by unsophisticated atheists.
maybe humanity's average IQ is lower than I thought, or childhood indoctrination is too hard to erase once it takes hold, maybe fear of death is to pervasive... probably all of the above to some degree.
This is another example of the lack of sophistication in fundamentalist atheism. If you are religious your iq must be lower, you must be deluded or overcome by irrational fears. If only people could be enlightened and set free in the wonderful clear thinking world of atheism. The grass would be greener, the sky would be bluer. There would be no more war, violence, etc. Imagine!
Atheism sure is smashing ahead, while we get well known Christian personalities like this guy and Dan Barker, all the Christians have are people who sorta kinda didn't believe in God so they were atheists - well maybe agnostics or deists - well they didn't really think about it... but then they found Christ and were saved! The conversion examples they give are pathetic.
Nova - keep believing the fantasy! Well known Christian personalities?! Says who?! I read most of the Christian press and had never heard of either of these guys. Dan Barker is only well known as an atheist. And your comment that the atheists who convert were only people 'who didn't believe in God' and therefore were atheists is a wonderful Homer Simpson moment - duh! We keep being told that an atheist is just simply someone who does not believe in God. And with all due respect I think that Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, converting from atheism to Christianity is not pathetic - neither is McGrath.
Hitch 1 McGrath 0
Yay!!
Phil - funny. Imagine that. One liberal Christian who does not believe finds himself agreeing with an atheist who does not believe. Shocking! Hardly a massive victory. On the other hand I know many atheists who do now believe - including at least one who was so disgusted at the tone and irrationality of Hitch and Dawkins that he began to investigate Christianity and came to know Christ. Rejoice in your small victories but it does show a certain degree of desperation. Can this site now come up with other examples. I could tell you about a few Christians who have become atheists whose 'testimony' of their conversion is far more interesting.
Even the best arguments in favor of faith ultimately rely on presupposing the existence of God as a fact or an axiom. From there, countless arguments can be constructed which seemingly prove the need for a God. No matter how big it is, no matter how old it is, a circle remains a circle. That combined with a belief in belief is all that the theist can come up with. Many of the greatest thinkers in history have struggled with this and failed, century after century.
Blackwolf - even the best arguments in favour of atheism ultimately rely on presupposing the non-existence of God as a fact or axiom. From there, countless arguments can be constucted which seemingly prove that there is no need for God. No matter how big it is, no matter how old it is, a circle remains a circle. That combined with a belief in non belief is all that the atheist can come up with. Many of the greatest thinkers in history have struggled with this and failed, century after century.
If only all people could reflect on their own beliefs in an objective manner...
I think a lot of people recognize these arguments, and they really do not have a good response to them. However, they are so emotionally attached to their religion, I suspect that they cannot let go just because of the aforementioned attachment and feel badly if they do.
Neuro - Agreed. I think a think a lot of atheists do not have a good response to the Christian arguments (hence the resort to abuse and ridicule). However they are so emotionally attached to their atheism that they cannot let go.
Trouble is, a little scratching beneath the surface reveals Christianity for what it is, a confused and contradictory bronze age myth. Human curiosity is the razor of death for faith of all kinds. None of them can withstand close scrutiny. This leaves you with a choice and a challenge. Take the time to read and study all the arguments that challenge your notion of God. Step away from your cognitive bias and take an objective look at what you believe. Investigate the history, read a little Sam Harris, a little Daniel Dennett. And most important of all look at the world around you. If you can reconcile the sheer face of human suffering with the existence of your diety, then good luck to you. I know I couldn't.
Roy, the trouble is that you did only a little scratching. You need to dig deeper. I have examined Christianity and other religions in considerable depth. Christianity does stand. You need to take time and read all the arguments. I have investigated the history, and read Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett (and I would suggest that you do more than read just a 'little') - and I do look at the world around me. It does not make sense without God. If you want a more balanced reading I would also suggest reading CS Lewis (Mere Christianity and the Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed), Tim Keller (The Reason for God) and Plantinga or William Lane Craig.
Most of the people on this site are mind-blowingly intelligent, and know more about science, theology, philosophy and practically anything else you could name than you could possibly imagine. You have an incredible opportunity here, if you hang around and keep reading, to have the same epiphany as Prof. Elgaroy and realise that truth and happiness can be found, not by embracing myths, fears and threats, but by opening your mind to logic.
Brilliant! What a wonderful example of faith in the Dawkins sense. Blind and contrary to the evidence!
This seems a bit odd, since I thought Norway is surrounded by some of the least religious European states, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc.
Chuck - Holland - the least religious? Are you sure? Last time I looked church attendance in Holland was higher than in the UK, there were six MPs for the Christian party in the Dutch parliament and many of the churches are large. But perhaps you know better?
They do not engage the "bad guys", they insulate themself with doctrine and community, and they like it just this way. We cannot change that, as much as we try.
Some of us engage 'the bad guys' but guess what Gordon. Many of the 'bad guys' refuse to engage because they know that they are right and do not want to waste their time speaking about what is self-evident nonsense to people who are obviously deluded!
If you are sincere, ask yourself, can you question your faith without returning to it as the answer? If you return, be honest with yourself by reflecting on what thoughts and emotions lead you back to it. Is your faith brought by observation of a consistent truth or the fear of doubt and where it may lead?
SPS - good questions. Tank can answer for himself. For me the answers are yes I can question my faith - I only return to it as the answer if it is. I often reflect on what thoughts and emotions lead me to it. And my faith is brought about by observation of many consistent truths. Now let me ask you to do the same. Apply those questions to your faith.
You know in your heart it is FUCKING BULLSHIT!
Tank - welcome to the world of rational argument. A word of advice - don't touch the atheist faith or you will get this kind of emotive reaction.
Comment #193763 by clearthinker on June 16, 2008 at 2:49 am
As far as I can tell, the only reason you don't think he is irrational is because you agree with him.
Goldy - Actually no. The definition of rationality is not whether someone agree s with me or not. (Unlike the fundamentalist atheist position which works on the basis that the only rational position is the atheist one, and the only reason for being an atheist is rationality). I happen to think John Haldane is rational because when I have heard him speak, or read any of this material, that is the way it comes across. And I don't agree with everything he says.
Cherry Picking people who agree with you is unimpressive. Cogent arguments are - you fail to provide those.The points of my last comment stand irrefuted.
Not really. You also cherry pick and then you try to impress by your (clearly impressive) knowledge of some aspects of philosophy and then you try to brow beat people by using lots of big words. Dumb religious people like me just can't cope with such overwhelming intelligence. I checked with the professor of philosophy here at the University of Dundee and he agreed with you that many attempts have been made to provide a system of ethics which are not absolute but he also agreed with me that they all fall at the same hurdle and that the absolutist position is one that is coherent and philosophically viable. Of course fashions in philosophy change - there was a time when if you were not a logical positivist you were considered out of date etc. Since Ayer renounced his book logical positivism has largely been consigned to the bin - except in the circles of atheist fundamentalism. I realise that you get very upset when people dare to question you as the fount of all philosophical knowledge but I'm sorry - although some of your arguments are convincing, I have not found others to be so. Your arrogance in assuming that you have disproved God and your dismissal of anyone who does not accept your omniscience does not help.
Let me put it in laymans terms in the light of this current discussion. I stated that God using natural causes does not negate the fact that natural causes were involved or that it leads to answered prayer. When I phone up interflora and arrange for my wife to receive a bunch of flowers - does she say well - these could not have come from my husband because they were delivered by a man in a van?! No - she knows that whilst the immediate cause of her receiving the flowers is the man in the van - the actual cause is my purchasing them. Likewise when I pray that God would provide my daily bread - I know that it comes from Tesco, the lorry driver, the farmer etc. But there is nothing wrong or illogical in saying that God used these 'natural' means to provide. It is in God that we live and move and have our being. It is in Christ that all things hold together. And what is your answer to this?
"it is vacuous unless you have a coherent and applicable concept of
1.) What entities in a non-spatiotemporal realm would be
2.) How such entities can be at all in causal relation to something
3.) How causality from a non-spatiotemporal realm into a spatiotemporal realm should be possible
4.) What such causality would be
5.) How a causally closed chain of events in the spatiotemporal realm should allow for influence from outside (that is actually a contradiction, as are 2 and 3 - so no wonder there are no coherent concepts thereof)"
To which the only answer is 'what are you on?!
So, are you planning on apologising to Corylus for your "fundamentalist" insult? I am still waiting for that.
Poor Philip. You really go for the big issues don't you! No - Corylus took my sarcastic and ironic remark about being accused of murder, literally. I therefore called her a fundamentalist literalist. It still stands.
I'm sure this won't make much difference, but I'll try anyway:
Fundamentalist Atheist: A Contradiction In Terms. t
Yes - I read it. Inherently self contradictory. So what if an atheist can be a scientist, masseuse etc. So can a Christian. So what if atheism is based on reason, evidence etc. So is Christianity. The irony is that you state there is no atheist creed in order defend part of that creed (aka a fundamentalist atheist is a contradiction in terms). Not all atheists are closed minded - but many are and therefore using the term fundamentalist atheist is quite accurate.
Here is another one for him to quote mine "If Robertson reads or quotes this, he is entering into an agreement that he is a lying cunt that abuses the minds of children"
Damn, seems like i missed another hit and run by 'clearthinker', oh well......
Apathy - given that I have posted several times on this thread it is difficult to see how you can accuse me of hit and run. However given that I am involved in a couple of other threads and also the degradation of this thread through the comments of Billy and Irate (see above) - this time I will not be coming back to this one. I expect there to be a few nutters and rude people on any message board - I would however expect some degree of self regulation in the atheist community. But you seem to be happy to allow such people to be your spokesmen. Little wonder that you find it so hard to engage with those who see differently. It is actually very sad. Do you really think this helps RD nets self advertising as a 'clear thinking oasis'?
Anyway please feel free to continue to insult and abuse. This thread has run its course for me.
PS. Q - if you want to see how a debate should be conducted and how an intelligent atheist can make some good points then you should go to the FCOS forum and look at the debate between Angela and Richard (and a few others). YOu might pick up a few pointers.
Comment #193167 by clearthinker on June 14, 2008 at 11:30 pm
MPhil -
Sorry - but the notion of God using ,natural' causes is perfectly logical. Your definition that something can only be an answer to prayer if it does not involve natural agencies is wrong. It is your definition not the Bibles.
And yes you have argued that you can have morality without absolutes and even absolute morality without God. But the arrogance is in assuming that because you have argued it, therefore it is arrogant for anyone to reject what you have said. Are you seriously claiming that the debate is over and that all philosophers are now of your opinion. As it happens I was speaking at a conference yesterday with Professor John Haldane, professor of philosophy at the University of St Andrews, and he argued precisely against the position you hold. Then agin maybe he does not know what he is talking about and is guilty of irrationality and hubris?
Comment #193161 by clearthinker on June 14, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Firstly, as Steve Zara has pointed out, there are plenty of atheists who believe in absolute morality. They're called Buddhists.
Hungarian - I am not so sure about this. I have read some Buddhist writers who deny the concept of absolute morality. And I have also met some who say they believe in God. Its a bit more complex than you suggest.
Have you noticed that your posts don't get deleted from this site, even though most of it is drivel? Your site however cannot take the criticism, and you delete entire threads.
Mordacious - I'm afraid that you need to get your facts right. Many of my posts have been deleted from this site and I have been banned several times. And our site has not deleted entire threads. We had a revamp a while ago and started over again - but you will notice that many atheists post and their posts are left. Still apart from that your post was accurate!
David, when you can add something substantive other than your incessant vacuous inanities, then you will get a decent response. Until then, personally I will be ignoring your sad, condescending and worthless rants.
Vaal - that is of course a very neat psychological defence. A bit like the child sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'I can't hear you, I can't hear you'. By definition anyone who disagrees with you and dares to explain why is 'insubstantive, vacuous, etc. By definition such an attitude is the essence of the fundamentalist. Feel free to disagree with me and to point out where I am wrong. But name calling does not really work as an argument for me.
If things appear by naturalistic agency, then by definition there has been no intervention, and all natural causal connections can be traced.
Steve - by whose definition? The trouble is that you are confusing things. Who says that answered prayer always has to be miraculous? If I pray that the Lord will provide me with food and he does so by enabling me to buy food out of a shop (thereby using 'natural' agencies), rather than causing food to miraculously appear on my plate - then why should that be considered strange. The vast majority of answered prayers are done through ,natural' agencies. It is just that we believe that God (as well as human beings) is well able to use them.
And then claims bitter persecution when people call into question his repeated mendacious lies.
AlanW - I know this is getting boring - but then so are your repeated accusations. I will make this simple for you - please tell me one repeated mendacious lie that I have told.
OK. A Sinophobe was cut up in traffic by an Asian looking driver. He utters a prayer suring all Chinese adn lo and behold, an earthquake occurs, killing thousands. This then is the fault of the Sinophobe? And by God's blessing?
Goldy - Huh? What is your point? Such simplistic statements really show an ignorance of both philosophy and theology which is quite breathtaking. Your statement would only make any kind of sense if God answered all prayer and directly did so. No Christian would ever teach that.
Just as I was starting to get irritated by the religous I come across here, I see this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html
Poor WeeF - must be hard to think he is a minnow in this sea of intellectual titans :-)
Yes - Goldy - this is 'research; done by the same man who tells us that blacks are less intelligent than whites. I guess Hitler had it right - white atheists really are the superior race!
If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.
Worth a try?
Phat bat - yes - PLEASE.
I see a bit of a problem with the existence of an afterlife then. Good people spend an eternity in heaven, and it is supposed to be nice. But how then is that possible if there is no nasty there?
Steve - decisions are made by then. The nastiness is all in hell.
Thanks for the clarification - you cashed the cheque and used your overdraft facility - now i understand the story and everyone else does, there was no magic, just a high interest convenience available to customers of your particular bank.
Apathy - thanks - but you are still not getting the point of the story. It has nothing to do with whether I would go into overdraft or not. If the £87.50 had not been received then I would have. I prayed that it would - and by the end of the day - without telling anyone it was - from three different sources. Now of course it could have been coincidence. And I am not saying this proves anything...but it is part of my personal empirical evidence for my own faith.
Everyone has tried to use logic/reasoning with him, and he just ignores it and goes on about his rants.
Mordacious - thank you. That is so funny. Everyone?! A classic example of myopic reading - seeing only what you want to see. Either you have a problem with reading or you have a completely different definition of logic and reasoning.
22. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
Comment #192998 by clearthinker on June 14, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I have no wished to get involved in this particular thread, and I have appreciated some of the comments here. However I am a little surprised that the man who claims that whites are more intelligent than blacks is cited on here. Surely the desperation to prove that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to believe in God, should not lead one to post an article by such a racist?
"Christians are on average stupid, as are many ethnicities.
The truth is hard and not always compatible with political ideals. "
Please tell me that does not mean what it seems to mean - that white atheists are the top of the intellectual tree?
23. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #191904 by clearthinker on June 12, 2008 at 4:57 am
I realise that Paula's letter will be met with Richard's approval - after all it only espouses his major ad homienm fallacy - look what some people do in the name of religion, therefore all religion is child abuse. However you will forgive me saying that it is a bit of a cheap shot to use such a tragedy to promote the atheist cause.
"Any religion that indoctrinates its young to believe that it is not only acceptable but actively a virtue to believe as absolute truth claims that cannot be substantiated by evidence, to accept as truth something that has merely been asserted on the basis of authority and tradition, is guilty of abusing its children, just as these mullahs are."
Of course the hidden agenda behind this is that Paula (echoing TGD) links fundamentalist Islam with Christianity and implies that those who teach children Christianity are guilty of child abuse. As a Christian I teach that real faith is based upon truth and evidence, and that authority and tradition (whether from a theologian or a scientist) are not enough to solely determine truth. The statement that it is child abuse to teach 'absolute truth claims that cannot be substaniated by evidence' is of course itself a statement that cannot be substaniated by evidence - and is therefore a self contradictory one. But don't let such philosophical niceties get in the way of your absolute tradition and authority!
Comment #191831 by clearthinker on June 12, 2008 at 12:35 am
If you do, you can go and get fucked by a big bear of your own choice.....Unless, of course, you genuinely do not give a flying fuck as so often seems to be the case when you're around....This will give you a flavour of the wilfully ignorant fuckwittery spread by David Robertson et al. Stone cold fucknuts........ Regrettably, fuckwittery is not regarded as a sin. Oh, what good people they are..........For Robertson, lest he feel neglected, I will reserve only a well-deserved and heartfelt 'Fuck off, cunt'.......David Robertson You are a low-life, scum-bag, fucktard. You can quote me in your next book...... sorry I must be a stupid bastard - because when reading your posts I can't tell the difference between irony and bullshit :) ............Ah, no wonder this thread is jumping, that horrible bug-eyed toad Robertson is back...... What a disgrace of a human being he is. His fucked-up profferings should be enough to drive doubt into even the most faithful of faithoholics' ideas of 'faith'........ I still want the bears to fuck him......
I see that since my last post (only a couple of days ago) this oasis of clear thinking has been living up to its reputation. Reason, and rationality have been shining forth in all their glory. course one could say that this is only a few ignorant people whose vocabulary is somewhat limited but the sad fact is that this vitriol is posted on here without any self-correction from other atheists and without the moderator moderating according to his own rules. But then again maybe the above does not count as offensive in the atheist subjective morality? I genuinely feel sorry for those self respecting atheists who are embarrassed by Dawkins and his fans. Little wonder that they have left this site.
Did you hand over the cheque, with the knowledge that the money wasn't in the account, and then only later, maybe even before or after it was cashed, some unknown strangers, some philanthropists of the night, paid money into your account?
Apathy- and all the other desperados who are really struggling to find some way to accuse me of lying - let me explain this nice and simply. I wrote a cheque for a sum of money which I did not have but I did have a bank overdraft facility which covered the amount of that cheque - therefore the cheque was not dud, nor was it dishonest to do so. In fact today I paid a bill out of my overdraft facility (being on a salary of £18,500 means that things can be a bit tight some times!). I will not explain again the point of story - especially as you do not want to see it - but if you are interested have look at the original thread.
Also, any one who uses the term 'American Imperialism', loses any argument by default, this proves you either lack any cognitive faculties to come up with your own opinions (which surprises me, after all, you've invented a god in that head of yours) or you are just a bit of a muppet.
So American imperialism does not exist? You are an a-americanimperialist? Tell that to to the Iraqis.
David, are you saying that moral relativism is an atheist tenet, and that the absence of justice is a necessary consequence?
Hungarian - Yes.
Perhaps then, to help show what a truthful person you are, you could come up with a list of the tenets of atheism, the supposed doctrines of lack of belief.
Steve - There is of course a world of difference between someone being mistaken and someone deliberately telling lies. There is also no need to accuse people who disagree with you of de facto being liars. In terms of the tenets of atheism I see them being displayed here all the time - and woebetide anyone who dares question them. I think that Paula was right to cite Baggini when he spoke about the central tenets of atheism. I am sure you could draw up a list yourself but how about starting with empiricism and logical positivism.
Where were you accused of being a murderer David?
Kindly supply a reference for this accusation.
Corylus...Look up sarcasm and irony and you will get the point. (Boy - its so hard dealing with all these literalist fundamentalists!)
However, use of reason can lead to an understanding that there are no absolute morality. This does not lead to moral anarchy, as we all have to get along.I am sure you must know of the serious philosophical work that has been done regarding ethics. If not, I am happy to point you at some references.
Thanks Steve...please do. I have read a considerable amount on this subject but am always interested in reading more. I am not sure that everyone would believe that we all have to get along.
Imagine all the terrifically useful things you could have done during these wasted hours - the science and spelling books you could have read, the museums of natural history you could have visited, all the Richard Dawkins videos you could have educationally digested.
Styrer- You are of course entitled to think that prayer is a waste of time. But is it not a bit rich to suggest that I have to repent by worshipping at your shrine and listening to your prophet?!
It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.
Steve - sorry its not one of my tactics. Its one of the laws on RD net. Anyone posts anything which goes against THE TRUTH and all hell breaks loose. IWtness the thread on logical (from Canada). I started to read that thread but gave up after the umpteenth - asshole/fool/completely wrong post. You are an exception to that rule and seem to have overcome the RD net evolutionary trait towards fundamentalism...however that does not stop you inventing new defences - like 'he can spin anything'.
It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.
Corylus...aw diddums.. does this mean that you want me to be banned again? Can't handle it?
Cant think of anything worse than being linked to Ken Ham, so come on guys, cut him some slack..... t
Scottish geologist - for once I totally agree with you. Have mercy....I have nothing to do with Ken Ham....
I wonder if David supports this view - after all his name and picture are on that site?
It would be good to get a confirmation that he believes that the existence of God is either unprovable or irrelevant.
Steve - because someone is on a site does not mean that they have endorsed it. I do not support that view.
where it generated the largest response of any posting before or since.
Absolutely a lie. Please visit RichardDawkins.net. Please feel free to search the hundreds of articles and threads that have produced more many more comments and posts, before and since April 2008.
Poor Juxta Monkey - having been caught out already by a lack of information, you have done the same thing again. I would like to show you mercy but you are using your ignorance to accuse me of lying so sorry I have to deal with what you say. Firstly I did not say or write either of the quotes you cite. Secondly when the publisher of the Dawkins Letters wrote that blurb it was actually true. Of course since then there have been threads with more posts - the most being Paula's review largely of my book. At the time it was written it was true- even though I did not write it and personally I did not like it. And just to bring you up to speed - in cae you make another faux pas....several of the followers on this website have also accused my publisher of lying because of the quotes from the original thread contained in the book. If you go to that thread now - they are not there. In their eyes this of course means that my publisher (and I) were lying. Of course they do not consider the possibility that over 300 posts were removed by the webmaster (which they were0.
Which brings my back to thewhitepearl. Didn't you mention that she was lying when you had a link with the RD site to your blog...wow, just wow. I can't believe you make money of your spiritual abuse.
You really need to get with it. Firstly whitepearl says she was not writing about me. So I apologised for thinking that she was. Mind you given that there was no other heretic involved in that discussion I did wonder who she was writing about and asked her. So far she has not managed to reply. Perhaps she is busy? And if she was referring to me (which of course she could not have been because she would not lie) then she would have been wrong - I did not refer to my blog in that thread.
Seems like RD and us "little" people are making you a nice fat paycheck. No. I take that back. Your lying is making you an nice big fat paycheck. Surely your checks won't magically "not bounce" now! Now you'll never have to pay the bank another cent again.
Wrong again. You have still not managed to evidence one lie I have said. And sadly I have not received a fat pay cheque (and before you look up your internet dictionary ..that is how we spell it in Britain!). On the other hand your guru is minting it in....buy the t-shirt, wear the badge and keep getting the books.
Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elaewhere?
This question has never been answered satisfactorily by a theist.
Peace - He didn't.
Why couldn't you have just said this months ago David? It would have caused so much unecessary grief.
I suspected long ago that you couldn't possibly believe that your bad cheque incident was evidence of prayer answered. I went so far as to suggest you might be lying (if even just to yourself). Now you have confirmed it. Or perhaps you have just changed your mind because it is only now that you realize (or realise) the absurdity of your former position.
Frankus. I did. You were not listening. And logic is obviously not your strong point. I do believe that praying for £87.50, not telling anyone, and receving precisely that su, through three different sources by the end of the day is either an answer to prayer or a tremendous coincidence.
Either Robertson believes that the funds appeared by supernatural agency or that the funds appeared by some naturalistic explanation. If the former (which would be consistent with his Creationism and other theistic beliefs) then he is at least consistent if deluded. If the latter then his representation to us of the event is a vile piece of self-serving and hypocritical dissembling.
Alan W - Neither logic nor theology seems to be your forte either. You think that all answered prayer is a miracle? Who teaches that? The funds did appear by some naturalistic agency. That is normally how God works. When I buy my wife some flowers and they are delivered by the flowershop - my wife does not turn round and say that because they were handed over by a van driver I had nothing to do with it. Think about it.
Yep, another couple of hits followed by a swift run.
Styrer - wrong again. Your predictive and analytic abilities are about as limited as your vocabulary.
Not that Robertson would actually answer this, but just exactly where does 'sin' come from, since all things come from God. He started everything, right? He was all by his lonesome before he went on that crazy 6 day creation thing, right? Nothing can exist without his knowledge, right? Where does sin come in? In other words: Who created it? Isn't God responsible for it, even indirectly?
Severalspeices - Good question. If you are serious about the answer then I would suggest reading Augustine. If you don't have the time the basic idea is that in order for there to be good. or to know good there has to be an opposite. For light you need darkness. He argues that sin is not a created thing but the absence of good - and that in order for there to be freewill there has to be something to choose. God could have made us all robots. But he didn't.
Does this guy look like the guy in high school that all the kids would stick "kick me" signs on? Maybe his turning to god was due to no friends, imaginary ones work if you have no others.
Mordacious - you got me.....(weeps buckets)....I confess....I had and have no friends and just made up the God of the Bible out of my head.....please help me....thank God (if he exists) for your sheer brilliance and perceptiveness...
You can't counter irrationality, can you?
Wupper - yes I have noticed.....especially when it thinks it is the only rationality.
Comment #190941 by clearthinker on June 10, 2008 at 1:14 am
Evidence, please. And good luck showing that there is even such a thing as the "British" legal system. As a good Scot, you ought to know better.
Thnaks Hungarianelephant - You are of course correct. I apologise. I should have said Scottish and English. The evidence - read any book on the history of the law in Britain. There are numerous examples - the need for two witnesses, the marriage laws etc. Of course you have to bear in mind two caveats - firstly the law of the land is not soley based on biblical principles, there are other factors. Secondly the law of the land is based on biblical principles - the bible does not lay down a series of civil laws, other than the civil law of Moses which applied only to the nation state of Israel at that time. My question would be for you - what would the law in an atheist state be based upon? In a universe with no justice how can you have justice?
epeeist was right; expect to see some of the more thoughtless comments on this thread used by the duplicitous liar Robertson in other fora.
Alan W - two solutions for you. Firstly please evidence where I have been lying and I will both apologise and never post on this site again. You keep repeating this 'lie' and yet never come up with evidence for it - which is a bit strange for someone who claims to be an empiricist!
Secondly if you are worried that I might use some of 'the more thoughtless comments' (thoughtless comments - on this oasis of clear thinking - surely shome mistake?!) then why not try a bit of self correction? Let your atheist brothers know when they are making thoughtless comments. Dare you challenge the herd mentality?
I'll leave others to speak from their own perspective but are you seriously doubting that there is no atheist creed? Time and time again it has been demonstrated (repeatedly on this thread even) that people who have no belief in gods hold widely divergent views on other matters.
Yes I am. I am following Paula Kirby's citation of the atheist write Baggini when he speaks of the 'central atheist tenets'. And you will find that people who are Christians also hold widely divergent views on many different matters.
Does your lack of belief in elves leave you in an ethical free for all?
I suspect you don't believe in fairies, or goblins either. I just go a bit further than you.
Incidentally, a firm statement of your disbelief in elves would be appreciated.
Hi Steve. I agree with you. My lack of belief in elves does not leave me in an ethical free for all. Elves have nothing to do with my life or world. I am not in an ethical free for all because I believe in an absolute God who provides the standard for absolute morality.
You have posted here that current biological thinking on evolution is questionable.That is dirty creationist talk.
So you think it is beyond question? I don't know - I always thought a good scientific and rational position was that everything is questionable. Since when did we move on to 'you cannot question evolution'? Oh - I remember - since it became part of the atheist creed.
Are you positing that consequence and empathy disappear if one doesn't believe in god? I assume you have felt pleasure and pain, physical, emotional? They, along with reason, do not magically disappear when one stops believing in god. Nor does religious belief guarantee proper behavior. Take the BTK serial killer, a church-going family man, for example:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/0305/04_05_btk_pastor_socked.html
If there were only one example, such as this man, how could you then continue to suggest that religion/god belief/etc, are synonymous with morality?
Blockquote text
Brian - these are excellent points. To answer them. No - I am not positing that empathy and consequence disappear if one does not believe in God. Nor do I regard pleasure and pain as being synonymous with morality. Nor do I believe that religious belief guarantees proper behaviour - in fact sometimes it is the very opposite - religious belief can lead to, or be used to justify, the most appalling behaviour. And I do not believe that religious belief is synonymous with morality. However I do believe that atheism provides no foundation whatsoever for morality, that the hired wired morality in every human being is a consequence of being made in the image of God, and that the absolute standard of morality is found in God.
Take into account that he has previously cut such responses and pasted them into his own web site. Also take into account that he has recently declared his creationist views and the fact that he is due to debate with an atheist at some juncture (chairing which was a task which Paula refused).Given his longish absence from the site, one has to ask why he is returning now (and why he has time to post on the Sabbath)?
Poor Epeeist. You live in such a conspiratorial hate filled world. Unable to answer the points being made you resort to ad hominem and pseudo psychoanalyis/detective. I did not recently declare my creationist views - I have always believed that God created - one assumes that most of you were intelligent enough to work out that one out. And I am always due to debate with atheists - it is something I do regularly - although I have to say that often it is like shooting ducks at the fairground. I am no longer surprised that most atheists are not prepared to debate. After being the fountains of reason and wisdom you can only debate with those who are also reasonable - those who are open minded enough to agree with you - and therefore of course there is no debate. And thank you for you concern about the Sabbath - or were you just taking a cheap shot? Surely not?
"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh. You are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable. The religious are, ipso facto, unentitled, because their reasoning is faulty. What they ARE entitled to is the opportunity to be educated - to BECOME reasonable.
Epeeis - I see you object to me citing this quote. Despite the fact that it was part of the thread. I notice that you do not state your disagreement with this point - despite its illogicality and intolerance. Instead you cry 'wolf'. 'Look how unfair and nasty Robertson is - taking what atheists say at face value and citing it. This is quote mining....boo hoo..".
Besides, David Robertson, you've erected a strawman. The comparison of atheists to homosexuals isn't in WHO THEY ARE, it's HOW THEY'RE TREATED. Big dif.
So let me see. Atheists are not allowed to marry? In what sense are atheists treated like homosexuals? Surely you mean that Christians are treated like homosexuals - we are regulary mocked, abused and discriminated against - or is that perfectly ok. In the brave new atheist world are we to be the new Jews?
I demand an apology as that is not what I said. How arrogant of you to presume I was talking about you. I wasn't. In fact I don't think I mentioned your name at all in the post you were referring to.
white pearl - I apologise. Who were you referring to? Given that as far as I could read I was the only person debating with you on that thread. Who left a link to their personal blogging site?
Goldy - the old ones are always the best! This letter is sent annually by someone from the atheist community to one of the newspapers in Britain. It is as ignorant now as it was then and is easily answered. But then it is not written as a question, but an accusation, designed to reassure the faithful that they are correct.
My target point was that atheists are (to some extent) united by their opposition to oppressive, intrusive, politically-dominating religions.
Donald - again this is Disneyworld atheism without any empirical evidence whatsoever - and a great deal of contrary evidence.
Oh dear. We had an exchange some time ago in which you failed to distinguish between AND and OR. (When I said certain people were EITHER deluded OR unintelligent, you criticised me on the grounds that I was challenging their intelligence. You reacted as if I had said they were deluded AND unintelligent.) Now you seek to criticise a remark about innate human characteristics by reference to a single exceptional, notorious and despised individual. And you post as "clearthinker"!!
But you were the person who said that there were inate qualities of justice etc in every human being. Surely Hitler was human? And Stalin? And Pol Pot? And Mao? All you have to do is look at human history (whether religious or atheist) to see that your statement is just empirically false.
Anyway, this particular criticism of yours is not only ill-thought, but also fails to make the point you hoped to make. Because dictators, such as Hitler, various Popes, Stalin, etc, etc do desire to live in a society of constructive cooperating individuals!!! It's their methods of obtaining this society (e.g. brain washing, oppressing or eliminating anyone who opposes them) that we object to!!
You seriously think that Hitler wanted to live in a society of constructive co-operating individuals? What kind of newspeak is this?
There are no absolute morals in the sense you imagine. There are, however, plenty of moral principles, such as the "golden rule" (written down hundreds of years before Jesus) and numerous more sophisticated moral principles applicable to the present day, derived from practical experience, knowledge of the world, and zeitgeist of the time. They are grounded in essential characteristics of humans, all the result of evolution, for example: (1) our brains make us feel good if we help other people or have successful social relations, and feel bad if we hurt other people, lie or cheat, and (2) our brains can reason about future consequences of various actions we might take, so we can choose advantageous actions.
If there are no absolute morals then there are no absolute standards to judge by. If there are no absolute morals then the prevailing societal morality can be determined by might and power. Might is right. And ultimately you have no basis for stating that Hitler was wrong. In this you would be following Bertrand Russell in stating that 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact". And your notion that it is evolution that makes us feel good or bad is completely empirically unfounded. Besides which you are ignoring the negative effects of evolution such as the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the weak. The fact that we are able to overcome these negative aspects of evolution only begs the question - how do we know they are negative?
See, here is my problem. There is this division in the atheist camp; those who complain if one does not respond in great detail to every post and those who complain if one writes at all.
Yes. It must be so much easier to be in the christain "camp", where all your opinions and thoughts were decided for you 2,000 years ago, and there are no diferences of opinion.
Peace - you have answered your own self-contradiction. And you have missed the point. It is not that atheists are divided (TGD being part of the atheist turf war) but rather that there is a great deal of hypocrisy. You start off with the premise that you want to reach - Robertson is bad - and that go two different contradictory routes to get there. Robertson is bad because he posts on this site or Robertson is bad because he doesn't post on this site. Never mind - either way you end up where you started and where you want to be and everyone is happy.
Meanwhile I will leave you to your billboards telling the world what you do not believe....
Tomorrow is another thread....
Comment #190363 by clearthinker on June 9, 2008 at 1:05 am
As for banks 'giving' - I must admit this is a new concept to me. Banks in Britain don't give. They take money from you and charge you for any overdraft which you must of course repay. Maybe banks where you are give. Perhaps capitalism (capitalizm?) works differently where you are?
Comment #190362 by clearthinker on June 9, 2008 at 1:03 am
weesam and righton...have a look at a dictionary under the word 'irony.
And Juxta monkey - thank you. One of the funniest posts I have read in some time. I assume that you are for real and not a spoof?
Just a couple of quick points.
Why is greed being sin ironic? Given that we are talking about starvation in the world and that there is plenty food in the world and that we in the West are demanding that food be grown to feed our cars - I would have thought that greed is sin is both relevant and true. Would you like to argue that greed is good?
And your self righteous anger and mockery about the 'cheque" (and thanks for once again showing how trivial and obcessive some atheists can be) you of course entirely miss the point. The money did come in - I did not need to use the overdraft facility - the point I made in the initial post was that we were looking for a specific sum - and that by the end of the day - without telling anyone - we received through three different people the precise sum we needed. Now of course there are lots of explanations and qualifications that one can put to that. But you rather pathetically focus on the 'dud' cheque - which was neither 'dud' nor illegal.
For what justice? YOUR justice? Stealing? Lying? Abusing?
Obviously I am missing something. I am not arguing for stealing, lying or abusing. Precisely the opposite. All three are wrong. I am sure you will agree - but then I am also sure that you will have no logical basis for your disagreement. Or are you accusing me of stealing, lying or abusing? Then being a good atheist who only relies on evidence I am sure that you will be able to provide it - please feel free to do so.
You wanted us to believe that you saw a miracle. Then you REALIZED (learn to spell) that it didn't sound so good. So you oft the miracle and tried to give the appearance of an innocent guy only trying to help children.
Again I am sorry but you just don't get it. You are so desperate to make me out to be a liar that you just make stuff up. My story on this one has been totally consistent. You just keep wanting to add motives, lies etc to it. Can I suggest that you be a little more mature?
Oh and another thing that was bugging me! It's ORGANIZE (learn to spell)!
Oh yes - and realiZe and traumatiZe. A lovely example of how, when one lives in a closed world where the only reality is what you know in your culture, it is so easy to get things wrong. In the US it is realiZE but in England (and Scotland) which may have something to do with English (a wee hint - the big clue is in the name) it is realise, organise etc. I know - its tough when the rest of the world does not adopt American standards but hey, thats just the way things go sometime. (Please don't invade us because we don't spell the way you want). American imperialism (or is that imperialiZm?) is bad enough - but atheist american imperialism - too much!
Comment #190348 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Clearthinker, again? Jesus F'ing Christ! He's like the serious kid who was never allowed to eat real sugar. Must be difficult when you can't release all that bundled up stress because masturbating = a date with a pitch fork and eternity...although, I think at this point a pitch fork might look mighty nice to you ;).
I mean, come on Clearthinker, you're not actually in here to change anyone's mind. We all know this. So why do you keep popping up...I have a hypothesis though. Remember the "Chain-gang"? Where they would go around beating up all the "fags"? You remember! But, they were all really gay themselves? Well, I suspect that you don't believe your own dribble you type. In reality, you doubt soooo much that you have to cyber beat-up the very people who show you a mirror of what, you, yourself, really are. Ask yourself who you are really trying to convince? Us? Or, yourself? DUN Dun dun. (It was Mr. Jacoby acting like a ghost the whole time Scooby!) I mean, because, someone SOOO against atheist has any doubts there isn't a God...right?...........riiiiigggghhht t
Sorry Juxta monkey - missed this brilliant piece of psychoanalysing! Its been a while since someone on this site tries to explain who I am and why I do what I do. I guess when you can't deal with the arguments you just have to make up stuff about the person whose making them.
Not that it will make any difference to a closed mind - but yes I do believe what I have written. Yes I do at times go through lots of doubts and no I do not write on here because I am trying to convince myself (although I must admit that if I ever need reminded of the emptiness and intellectual shallowness of atheism, its always good to come to this site).
And by they way - I am here to change people's minds - or at least to provide information which can be used for that purpose. And astonishingly some people have had their minds changed. That I did not expect but then God works in mysterious ways. (can I suggest that you immediately defend your faith against those last statements by a) declaring I am lying and b) stating that those who have written and told me they have changed their minds are either lying or were never truly part of the atheist faith anyway.)
Comment #190347 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm
clearthinker: I think it makes us (c) human. We, after all, don't claim to be all-good and all-powerful.
sb84 â€" Exactly. But the problem is that some people obviously think this is a killer point against the notion of God existing. It falls logically at at least two levels. Firstly just because God is all good and all powerful why does that mean that he should be held responsible for every disaster or evil in the world? Secondly, given that you have just admitted that being human is flawed â€" on what basis then do you think you can judge God?
you think God is subject to the same physical restrictions as us?
Alex - No â€" but you are arguing against a childish view of God which is not taught in the Bible. The view that God, in order to be God, must prevent any evil from happening, is absurd. Which is of course why atheists use that particular straw man argument â€" it justifies your own lack of belief.
Why yes, I bought a cd just this past week.
Now to your analogy, am I:
a) a music lover
Why, yes I am.
b) a bastard
Probably a bit of a bastard, yes.
c) (nonexistent)
I would hope I am not, as my entire life is predicated on the assumption that I exist.
But nevermind that, I agree with your assessment that God is just as concerned with his own amusement and blind to world suffering as the average human being.
Noodle - the point is that you were using a simplistic argument to make a cheap point. An argument in which you imply that God is unjust because he a) answers small trivial prayers and b) ignores the mega issues. You know this is unjust because you judge him by human standards. Standards which you suggest mean that we would of course do something about the starvation rather than be concerned about a CD player. But then you admit that as a human being you are quite happy to buy a CD, rather than give the money to the poor. Of course you realise that that is a simplistic and false dichtomy when it comes to you. Likewise when it comes to God.
And you seem to be basing your whole case on one experience of self obcessed Christian trivia. Having attended thousands of prayer meetings I have never had anyone come in with a CD player for healing - nor anything like it. Your argument is just simply another illogical strawman argument that allows your fellow believers to mock and justiifes your own faith position.
And what did clearthinker do? Did he give up his position of abusing others about a god that has no justification? Did he argue that it's best to stop breeding? Did he do anything?
I pray. I argue for justice (remember that strange concept that cannot exist in the athiest world of moral relativism?) - so that the rich West do not drive up food prices by feeding grain into our cars. I give. And I act upon the belief that gluttony and greed are sins. I also act upon the belief that all human beings are my brothers and sisters - that we are all created equally in the image of God and that any form of Malthusian social Darwinianism whereby the weak and the poor are 'naturally' eliminated, is abhorrent.
What's with all the comments about ClearThinker and bad cheques ? Did I miss a post somewhere ?
Rod - the point is that some of the atheists here were having a lot of difficulty in presenting their arguments and in dealing with mine so they resorted to name calling. One in particular that they seem to enjoy is calling me a liar. However, despite being asked numerous times, they have been unable to come up with a single example of lying. Which is a bit embarrassing for people who claim that they always base their position on evidence! So in desperation they have latched on to something that occurred in another thread. I gave one example of an answered prayer - which involved me needing a specific sum of money to help a bunch of children go on an outing. To cut a long story short we needed £87.50 to pay for the bus. We did not have the money but I wrote out a cheque for the bus driver and then the money came in through various means. Rather than deal with the point of the story in context (I accept that this was too much to expect) some of the atheists got all moral (despite of course not having any absolute morality) and started claiming I was dishonest, a cheat, liar, murderer (therefore God does not exist) because I wrote a 'dud' cheque. It was such a hilarious, desperate and pathetic attempt at an argument that I have not really bothered with it. However since some of the poor wee souls are clearly traumatised by this possibility I should perhaps set their minds at rest. The cheque was not of course dud - it was real. And it would not have bounced - because the Clydesdale bank at that time had an automatic overdraft facility of £100 (such is the level of obcessive behaviour exhibited by some I now suspect that the amateur detectives who want to accuse me of lying will now research bank accounts in 1987!). Quite why this should be such an issue with some here I am not sure. I suspect it is because they are not able to deal with the arguments put forward, and they cannot substaniate the mantra of lying.
clearthinker you have pissed me off again with your failure to grasp the point and attempts at misdirection. You NEVER answer questions directly and will, if you respond, pick on a minor point and avoid the main thrust of the argument put forth.
Hi Frankus. Perhaps you can tell me the main point of this thread which I have avoided? Or is this just another accusation without foundation which is justified only by your first six words?
God fixes CD players and covers bad cheques but allows massive loss of life in natural disasters and won't heal amputees. Why?
Another strawman argument. What you mean is that some people think that God fixes CD players etc. Personally I think that is absurd and nothing to do with biblical Christianity. The problem of evil is there whether one believes in God or not (although if one does not then there is of course the problem of recognising and defining evil). The question is what can be done about it - and what has God done about it. Your simplistic slot machine theology gives no answers - which is of course why you use it.
Okay. After typing that out it is all clear to me.
Fuck of
A strawman argument backed up by emotion and rudeness. I'm sure it is all clear to you. - I'm just glad I don't suffer from that kind of clarity.
Comment #189972 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 1:52 am
Steve,
I am intrigued by your comparison between atheists and homosexuals. I’m afraid it does not work for me. If the only atheist belief is that there as no gods and that there are no atheist beliefs/creed/philosophy " as I am continually told " then it is very different from homosexuality. I am assuming that a homosexual would not say that they did not have a philosophy or belief " they are not for example asexual. Most homosexuals I know would describle their homosexuality as something that they are, or that they have made a positive choice to be. A homosexual is not someone whose raison d’etre is that they do not believe in something.
It's time for atheists to "come out of the closet" in the way that gays did in the 70s. That's all we are doing by getting together; we are just recognising that our numbers are far larger than any one of us as individuals had ever imagined. That's not religion - that's ENLIGHTENMENT
Dr Jonesz " Yes of course you are more than many people think. You have basically been controlling the Western and Chinese world in the name of Enlightenment for the past 100 years. Anyway perhaps it is time you came ‘out of the closet’ and let your light shine. After all up until now atheists have been quiet, hiding and afraid. Perhaps you could write a book " lets call it ‘The God Delusion’? Perhaps you should get yourselves a name. I don’t know…how about The Brights? That should be self effacing enough and doubtless will catch on.
One finds considerable opposition to promoting "reason" in public discourse, I have found (someone in a thread actually called this "intellectual bullying"). But, when one thinks about it, how else are we to manage our societies fairly? The alternatives include listening to those who threaten, or shout the loudest, or just to go along with the majority because they are the majority.
Steve,
I totally agree. I have often tried to promote reason and find that it is often met with abuse, ridicule and bold unevidenced statements of faith.
33. Comment #189725 by Obecalp
Would love to read a reply from 'clearthinker'
Really? I think I would rather hang by my testicles in the garden than have to listen to another essay of befuddled mental gymnastics by Mr Robertson.
See " here is my problem. There is this division in the atheist camp; those who complain if one does not respond in great detail to every post and those who complain if one writes at all. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. Psychoanalysed if you do and psychoanalysed if you don’t. Ridiculed if you do and ridiculed if you don’t. Either way it must be reassuring to the faithful to be able write off any heretic as a bastard.
As far as I know, good legal systems are based on reason.
Actually good legal systems are based on law and justice. The British and American legal systems are based upon Christian principles of law and justice. What would you base law and justice on? Or do you believe in a universe where there is no justice?
Not going to happen. The illustrious David Robertson now confines himself to making hit and run comments in which he merely repeats all his old favourite claims without bothering with something as insignificant as substantiating them.
oh dear Q " wrong again. How do you explain this one?
Oh come off it. I have plenty of core beliefs, and so do, I am sure, most people here. They are the core beliefs of most decent people. Atheism has nothing to do with it.
The issue is whether or not those core beliefs can be, or are, derived from atheism.
Indeed. If atheism is simply the absence of belief with no philosophical or practical consequences, then it cannot be a motive for bad behaviour or good. Which then leaves us in a free for all. Please define what you mean by ‘decent’ and why your definition of decent should be the one that everyone has to adhere to?However, the basic acceptance of "God" was always a given.
Epeeist - And now the basic non acceptance of God is a ‘given’ in many areas of society. Such unthinking atheism is based upon a series of myths which are swalloed wholesale by atheists.Mob mentality can work in many ways and i fear that sometimes the talk of mass organisation of athiests can only lead down a similar path.
Apathy " spot on. It is already happening.Maybe I need to become more shrill and arrogant. Any advice, Carto?
Read The God Delusion?"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh. You are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable. The religious are, ipso facto, unentitled, because their reasoning is faulty. What they ARE entitled to is the opportunity to be educated - to BECOME reasonable.
Laurie " is this what Steve means by reasonable? We are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable " and anyone religious is by definition not reasonable. Way to go! Reeducate the believers. Make them ‘reasonable’. Don’t let them vote until they become reasonable. Is this the ‘decency’ Steve is speaking about?And frankly it's tuff shit if this site and other meeting places like it are accused of "intellectual bullying". The prerequisite here is intellectuality and if you don't have it, you're out of luck.
I find that I'm not engaged in such conversations in the flesh because the average Christian has nothing to add but faith and a little poorly managed philosophy.
Arguing with them is like trying to scratch an itch that you can't reach. You never get there and it's never satisfying.
Another gem of reason and rationality. Little wonder that you have so much difficulty discussing. Maybe you’re out of luck?By definition you can't indoctrinate anyone into atheism! You
Hilarious! Another unevidenced illogical unproven statement of faith. The wish is father to the thought.Wrong! There is a small group of us that associate because we are free (rational) thinkers (aka atheists) that believe our minority group is the most obvious sane group. People who believe in the supernatural (the vast majority) are delusional in varying degrees. We don't band together because of lack of belief, it's because we think rational people are more trustworthy, interesting, and in general, more intelligent and well rounded.
Afraid to die " Of course. Only atheists are rational and non-deluded. You are more trustworthy, interesting and more intelligent and well rounded! Of course. Its so obvious. Why can’t everyone see it? Because we are deluded. Have you ever read the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes?clearthinker again? *Sigh*
he makes me want to slit my throat with a butterknife.
I had a nice pleasant smile on my face; the feeling of hope... and then (insert screeching tire soundbite) dun-dun-dun I see it: Comment #189686 (insert car crash soundbite)
Whitepearl " I know. Its really annoying when someone wakes you up from your dream. Welcome to reality.I did get the useful one regarding DR and his creationism outing.
I have to say it did not surprise me, although I always wonder how much of what he says is pure spin. This month, he is creationist....
Unfortunately Steve " that one was wrong too. You don’t need PM’s to ‘out meâ