. I'll find a way, so you just post however you feel is most comfortable, and if I have an issue with it, I'll let you know.
The debate is ok, as long as it's a rational point to point debate. Once it turns into pugnacious name calling and general misrepresentation and disrespect of what others' views are, it becomes unpleasant, and that's when it has not only no real point, but no enjoyment to be had at the simple thought exercise involved.
While I agree, you've done
exactly that in your very first post (and your second post), in both misrepresenting my points
and calling me or my tactics "silly," so it's difficult to take you seriously on this point. You can trust that I'm not going to call you either of the -bags (douche or scum), I'm not going to swear at you, and I'll try to keep any chortling and scoffing above-board.
No matter. On to your post.
C',mon JDawg. Really? You're quibbling with words here. Anything that can be shown to be a fabrication to a reasoanble doubt is considered disproven. How silly.
Actually, all the quibbling appears to be on your end. You first asked for definitive proof--as in fixed and final. I stated that such evidence as of yet is impossible to obtain, but there is enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt. You then say that I am contradicting myself--which I am not--so I understood your meaning of "disprove" to me something other than what it actually means, which is as you say, simply to show something beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you going to settle on this particular definition now, or were you hoping to use a semantic argument to distract from your lack of compelling arguments elsewhere?
Ok, are we talking about debunking as revealed truth as in proving false, or proving unproven? There is a difference
The former. Nothing I wrote indicates otherwise.
Assuming a being which can create at will, and who controls time, all of your arguments fall apart. So I suppose God might just be exactly that, and Heaven the name of a planet there.
As I've said, I'm not arguing that there isn't some remote possibility that this is possible. Using your logic, it's also possible that I'm really you from the future. Or I'm some governmental black ops agent from the 1940s tapping into the spacetime continuum to investigate thesim at the turn of the century. Rather, I'm arguing that there's enough evidence against these ideas to say beyond reasonable doubt that they are not true.
I have no proof against it, no reason to disbelieve it, except that I remember trying to think it up. Perhaps it is revealed truth!
The memory of trying to think it up is, by definition, reason to disbelieve it. But, more importantly, there are plenty of other reasons, such as the ones I've listed, to disbelieve it. If you need another example, ask yourself: if such a thing happens, where are all the other displaced figures in time and space? Where are the photos of Abe Lincoln with a former Playmate in one arm and a winged pig in the other? Where are all the other examples of our natural laws breaking (or even bending)?
And finally, just because you can say "You can't definitively demonstrate that anything is impossible" is no reason to believe that
everything is possible.
See above. Besides, this is me we're talking. Have you forgotten? I'm cut to the quick.
See above.
This is an interesting word, I looked it up, because my vocabulary is pretty simple. Did you mean "relating to a parish" or "narrow-minded" here?
Limited in scope.
interesting descriptor. This means hater of women. Did you know that in the old testament of the bible there are a number of women held up as heroes? Shining examples? In the new testament, past acts, there's actually less, as I recall. The entire Bible was written during a very patriarchal time, though. While Islam has shown barbaric tendencies, most current christian faiths not only acknowledge but embrace the idea that men and women are truly equals. I know that adaptability in the religious goes against the grain. Mostly because of some fools who like to go on about a non-changing God etc. Other believers typically point out to these embarrassing fools that if that was the case, why don't the women in their faith travel to some nice secluded place away from society when they have menstruation, or why they eat Lobster, the list goes on
While it is true that most Christians view women as equals, they do not get the warrant for this opinion from their faith. They get it from society. As I've said, women are chattel in the Bible, property. The commandments list them along with manservants and cattle. Obviously Mary is lauded, but there wasn't much of a choice in the matter, since women are the ones who give birth.
Actually, the military tactics used in the battles described in the Biblical record are generally complete nonsense. Ever heard of Jericho? How about crossing the Red Sea(I know, it's a stretch militarily, but I thought it fits.). These battles were supposed to be "evidence" of the power of God. I guess it worked better back then.
The whole Bible is generally complete nonsense. That doesn't change the message. God demands blood, tells his people to rape and pillage, to commit murder and infanticide. Obviously, Christianity would be a different beast altogether if the founders had chosen to eschew the Old Testament, but at the same time, Jesus himself endorses it, so it's part and parcel with the faith. You can't have one without the other. At any rate, the God-Subject dynamic too clearly echoes the Dictator-Subject dynamic to be of anything other than human invention.
Actually, I agree. The God as described to us through Jewish law and history was just that. Vengeful, jealous, protective of his faithful. Personally, I believe that was kind of the,"Your society is too moronic to do this simply or kindly, you're just too barbaric, so I'll work on your level.
I bet Job would say otherwise.
Same concept as "creation" being a good explanation during the reign of the early pharoahs, but then God wasn't talking to Stephen Hawking at this point, was he?
The creation story in the Bible does not work as a dumbed-down version of events, nor as a metaphor, or whatever else an apologist might try to pass it off as.
It could, but I can't say I entirely discount those faiths, until scientific evidence has come along and objectively disproven the truth of them. There's no one on Mt. Olympus tossing lightning bolts. If however, as some say,"Olympus" was a different plane of existence, then maybe so. All bets are off until you show evidence to disprove it, or at least that's how I feel.
Nonsense. Even if Olympus
were a different plane of existence, the fact that the gods have disappeared with the faith is evidence that it was the gods who relied on the religion, not the other way around. The same could be said of any dead religion. It isn't simply that the believers are all gone, it's that those meddlesome gods are gone as well.
Amen! My choice of belief in christianity is just as valid to me as your choice of atheism. To me, without evidence, it is just a choice. I think the same way about sexuality. It all seems pretty similar to me.
Ah, see, now you're doing that semantic trickery again. There
is evidence against the existence of the Christian God. What you're talking about is knock-down definitive proof; the ability to say "There is no possible way this exists." That cannot yet be provided, and I am not trying to say that. What
I'm saying is that there's enough evidence to satisfy your reasonable doubts.
And my choice of atheism is based on logic and evidence, not some desire to disbelieve. While we're at it, were you born into your faith?
All I can say to this, is to see my remarks in blue. My "holy book" is very old, and written to a primitive people. If explaining an ICBM to one of the caesars, how would you put it? Would you hand them a echnical manual and wish them luck, or try to use words and examples they might actually comprehend? Imagine someone today reading your words and examples. Would they then say that ICBMs cannot exist? Would that make good sense to you?
Setting aside for a moment that those people were just as capable of understanding technology as we are, and setting aside the fact that your omnipotent God could simply have divinely implanted the truth into the minds of his people, the analogy of the missile fails, because it assumes that the natural explanations found in the Bible are scientifically correct, just made simpler and easy to understand, which is not true. Any attempt the Bible makes to explain the natural world is no more correct as a metaphor or a dumbed-down version than it is at face value.
So, christianity=islam? I mean, I know the Muslims claim it's the "same" God, but the Christians and Jews argue it's just the same arabic word for "Father". This is like saying that Apples are fruit and Bananas are fruit, and I like apples therefore I like fruit and therefore must like bananas. Did you want to talk about proof of God's existence or repugnant practices by the religious? Shall we next have you defend Stalin's purges or the practices of Pol Pot? I mean, they are atheist, you are atheist, therefore...
You're all over the place here. You asked what the point of such discussions were, and Spider and I have attempted to explain to you exactly what the point is. That includes what people can get away with when religion is held exempt from criticism. If you don't want the answer, why ask the question?
As to your strawman: I did not say or imply that Christianity and Islam were the same. I was demonstrating that both are dangerous when not held accountable. And your attempt to equivocate religion to atheism predictably fails, since there is no "atheist doctrine" which would grant warrant for the actions of Stalin or Pol Pot. Religion, on the other hand...
Grant it dominion? No. Throw it away and not allow people to choose to believe in these things?
Another strawman? Where have you been keeping these things in your time away?
No one is saying "throw religion away." I would fight for your right to worship as you choose. I simply argue that faith can be dangerous when granted authority or immunity.
Oh, and let's not get into the whole "Parents force religion on children..." thing. Atheist parents do it, too, but I don't ever hear about how terrible THAT is.
How does one force atheism on a child? Anyway, if that were true, the reason you don't hear about how bad it is is because atheism is not a worldview, it is not a doctrine, it does not promote ideals. Atheism doesn't condone rape or murder in any context, it does not promote bigotry or misogyny. It doesn't condemn these things, either. It's nothing more than an intellectual position: "There is no evidence that this god exists," or, if you prefer, "This god does not exist."
You realize that things like Marxism are dogmas, too, right?
Yes, and society advances in the absence of them.
Did you know that China is a secular nation? They have a great record on these things that are "exclusively secular".
I did not say that a secular society could not also oppress its people. (Did you happen to bring a broom? You're leaving straw all over the place)
Really? You have heard of christianity, right? I don't know many jewish women who are "subjugated" by their men(mostly it seems to be the other way around, in practice. lol) If I'm wrong, show me evidence. Just a warning, I will pretty much argue anything that's biblical and not credited as the words of Jesus himself. To me, the rest is historical, or God trying to come down to man's level and allowing him his foolishness.
Or you'll argue that these particular verses attributed to Jesus are not really him at all, but additions made for political purposes, just as another poster did when I pointed out to him that "Jesus Meek and Mild" says he wants those who oppose him brought before him and slayed. In other words, you have already made up your mind, and no evidence will sway you.
And by the way, the argument that only Jesus' words are to be believed does not stand up. If you believe other parts of the text were invented for political purposes, why would Jesus' words be exempt? Certainly he contradicts himself enough. If you're going to pick and choose, at least admit that it's an arbitrary choice.
Let's not forget, either, that Patriarchy had real value in that day and time. Women's rights in the US have only arrived in the past hundred years. Before that, it was the man's job to go out and fight the indian and chase off the predator and such. Read differently, many of those "horrible" rules for the people of that time were all about PROTECTING women. (I know, women can do anything, etc. Times have changed and women don't need men to stand up against such threats, generally. I'm sure there are exceptions that were matriarchal and the men were kept, but I'm not aware of them. Besides, every nine months a woman can make one litter of children, typically one at a time. A man could theoretically produce one every couple of hours. Speaking to evolution here, but as a species, which one needs protecting more? Until the species subdues the planet, of course.)
This is a load of ignorant nonsense. I'm sorry, I can't put it any milder than that. This is misogyny defined, the belief that women are somehow incapable of making sound decisions, and require men to survive. It's bollocks. I could make you account for all of the various rules--such as mandating that no decoration be worn, or the declaration that a widow who "indulges" (as in remarriage) is "dead even as she lives"--but that would be to give credence to your backwards, misogynistic ideas, and I'm not going to do that.
I'm just going to assume you misunderstood me here. I'm talking about position as pertains to God exists/doesn't exist. You are bringing up how society is effected. If they in any way have to do with each other, please tell me.
The debate over the existence of God has lead to this decline in religious authority. Just look at the various related topics our own debate have covered.
What? I wasn't saying it was jewelry
Don't be so literal. You were talking about "enlightened" people telling everyone just how enlightened they were. I was just saying that enlightenment isn't something meant for showing off, i.e. a bauble.
I think I see. I was speaking more to the fact that the"I'm better than you" enlightenment is not a very good way to do things. Or are you saying that trying to force christianity on the native peoples of America was a good way to do things? I bet those muslims you feel are horrible(well, I think so, too, but, you'll see where I'm going.) would tell you you are an infidel and not enlightened, too. It all goes back to Objective/Subjective Maybe I'm just too relativist or something.
You're equating enlightenment to religion, which is a false equivocation. Religion is the opposite of enlightenment.
If you're just trying to say that it's not good to force your beliefs on others, I can agree with that. And anyone who stands against religion in the classroom and the courtroom would say the same thing. Theists often mischaracterize the fight of atheists against religion as a "crusade" (they very consciously use that term) against faith, when really it's an effort to keep religion out of our textbooks and lawbooks. How can one make an argument against something if they can't tell you why that thing is no good?
If you're simply saying that atheists should be less aggressive in their language, there are plenty of atheists who agree with you on that. Someone recently posted a link to an interview with Laurence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and noted atheist, in which Krauss talks about trying to get a tough point across (religion is useless) without being insulting (religion is stupid/you're stupid for believing it).
On the other hand, we do not censor ourselves when talking about political beliefs, or tastes in art or music. Why does religion deserve special treatment? As of yet, the only answer I've heard is "Because it always has," and that's just not good enough.
