And - since we're on the topic here - all sins but one are forgivable
I deny the Holy Spirit. I deny its power, I deny its blessings, and I deny its very existence. I deny that I need or have ever needed grace. I deny these things earnestly, and have done so for as long as I have been able to reason, and will continue to do so for as long as I shall live.
Is that the one you're talking about? Does this mean I'll go to hell? I'm not joking about this. I honestly and pointedly deny anything and everything that the "Holy Spirit" is and ever could be.
Or are you referring to some other eternal sin?
I took communion with deceit in my heart, and denied the sacrament even as I pretended to care. I renounced my baptism before I even reached middle school. I attempted to excommunicate myself in parochial school. Have I hit the big one yet?
The whole religious debate always intrigues me. I personally am a staunch Atheist. Whilst I would love for their to be a happy hunting ground in the sky that I could chill out in, play games, perhaps even find a copy of Dune the board game. I sadly cannot deceive myself into believing this. Like many others I was herded through the catholic system but as I approach the birth of my first child I will make the controversial stance, with respect to the views of my extended family, of not baptising my child. I can't with good conscience register my vote of support with an organisation that prejudices against a people. Irrespective of whether one believes in a creator, the Catholic corporations stance on key matters is reprehensible.
Can we stop with the tooth fairies and penguins, we are talking about an all power being with 2 major religions and thousands of years of belief structure. Not something someone thought up to counter a proof argument. They are not the same you can’t compare them. I’ve observed Gods effects on my life, my children, and the world around me. Proof enough for me.
This idea that thousands of years of belief increases somethings validity always confounds me. The indigenous Australians have believed in mythical creatures like the Rainbow Snake, and a giant frog for 1000's of years, if not tens of thousand of years. Their isolation means that their religion was not easily able to spread like a virus across to other continents. Are we led to believe that this frog that drank all the water then was made to laugh, thus ending years of drought, is real? There was proof a plenty. The Rainbow Snake carved the rivers...the rivers exist and they look kind of like a snake. Surely evidence enough. So now we have an omnipotent being and a giant snake confirmed as existing.
Speaking of the indigenous people of Australia, it seems like an odd decision by god to send his only son to a little section of the world to do some preaching. Not only did he do some yammering, he performed the odd miracle to further add to his legitimacy. Unfortunately for those stuck on this continent in the southern hemisphere they would not find out about this incredible occurrence until far later by way of missionaries. Now it doesn't take much for a story to become skewed at the best of time, let alone this tale of the greatest happening our young earth has seen, when it is being passed on so many years later. Seems like a raw deal. For the longest time they have been believing in false prophets as their creators, when somewhere on the other side of the flat planet someone is getting a personal demonstration of miracles from the big dogs son.
The last point I wanted to make is one that just reinforces the futility of this entire discussion. I have this Christian at work that goes to a church in which god performs miracles on a weekly basis. A man that had poor vision can now see clearly without glasses. That is one example of many that he has apparently witnessed with his own eyes. So while I see nothing but evidence for my views as an atheist, many religious folk actively see the hand of god at work in their daily lives. A point one of the early posts made. So it is impossible to really debate this. I know for a fact that if the baby jesus from Talladega Nights, game down and turned my water into wine, doubled my bread and set fire to my shrubbery, I'd probably believe in him too. My theory is that the mind is an incredibly powerful tool, capable of providing the most realistic of delusions. Fingers crossed it's me that is delusional so I can go to heaven and skip in joy while homosexuals burn in hell.
I know my name, it is Adam I’m 100% positive. I know God exists and I’m 100% on that one too. See all this rationalism clouds your mind. It hides truth more often than it helps. You dig up more questions than answers. I don’t have to calculate the probability of my name, I know it.
This is your downfall. This is the only point we need to discuss. You have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and information. It is impossible, absolutely impossible, for anyone or any thing to know with 100% certainty that your name is Adam.
What if your parents have been lying to you all this time? What if your birth certificate is misprinted? What if everyone in the entire world has been playing a joke on you this entire time. We've all been pretending your name is Adam, when your name is actually Bob. It's possible. It might sound ludicrous, but you can not deny that it is possible. It's not probable, no it isn't probable. However, it is possible.
Can you disprove it? Can you prove the entire world has NOT been playing a joke on you? No, you can not disprove it. It is impossible to disprove. It is impossible for any evidence to exist that could disprove such a thing. You say that believing in a god is ok because it can not be disproven. Well, you can't disprove this worldwide conspiracy to keep your true name a secret from you. Therefore it is true, just as true as god.
This is the kind of twisted irrational logic you are using. Don't you see? It is very simple. Yet, you deny it endlessly. Is it because you don't want to admit your life has been a tremendous joke up to this point? Is it because you have ludicrous ideas in your head about how the world would be so terrible if you were wrong?
The reason we run around in circles is because our arguments are logical, while yours are not. You constantly are making appeals to antiquity, arguments ad populum. Every point you have made is completely devoid of logic or reason, and you fail to refute any point we have ever made with evidence. It's impossible to make a logical argument against someone who has no grasp on the very nature of logic. Read the bit about the penguins again. Do you really not understand it? Is it that hard?
I'm beginning to think that some, if not most, people's brains are just incapable of rational thought. If that were to be true, it would be more frightening than the wrath of any omnipotent deity.
The one point we have always made, always do make, and continue to make, is the lesson of the flying spaghetti monster. Can you refute it? Concentrate on that one point. Show one piece of real, observable, tangible evidence, that shows that the christian deity is more probable than the flying spaghetti monster. Just one. You can't do it. Nobody has done it. Nobody will. I challenge you to do so regardless, simply because it amuses me.
And - since we're on the topic here - all sins but one are forgivable
I deny the Holy Spirit. I deny its power, I deny its blessings, and I deny its very existence. I deny that I need or have ever needed grace. I deny these things earnestly, and have done so for as long as I have been able to reason, and will continue to do so for as long as I shall live.
Is that the one you're talking about? Does this mean I'll go to hell? I'm not joking about this. I honestly and pointedly deny anything and everything that the "Holy Spirit" is and ever could be.
Or are you referring to some other eternal sin?
I took communion with deceit in my heart, and denied the sacrament even as I pretended to care. I renounced my baptism before I even reached middle school. I attempted to excommunicate myself in parochial school. Have I hit the big one yet?
Suicide. No way to ask forgiveness for that one. The rest of the stuff just makes you kind of a vengeful dick. I can respect someone's choice to no longer take Communion or leave the faith, but that's just being a dick. I'd say it was disrespectful to those who believe, but you don't care about that.
I saw condemnations of eating shellfish, rules for selling slaves, and many, many things different in other bibles.
You should have finished reading. Towards the back there’s this guy named Jesus that shows up things change a bit. I think you would like Him. Start at Matthew, and go eat some crab.
But the 10 Commandments are in that section with the no crab policy. So is that whole "creation" thing and that "Noah's ark" malarkey. Does that all get invalidated too? Why, again, do you get to pick and choose what you believe and what you don't?
That's really the only unanswered question I have right now. I have NO problem with people cherry-picking ideas from their religion; in fact, that's the ONLY way I see it being useful. Use it as the philosophy it is intended to be.
Once you start cherry-picking, though, problems start arising. The Bible is the unequivocal word of God, is it not? If you say no, then you admit that it is a text written by man and not a divinely inspired work. If you say that it is the unequivocal word of God, then why do you only listen to parts of it?
Furthermore, why do you omit some parts but leave in others? OK, so you don't stone your wife to death for adultery (as well you shouldn't), but then why is homosexuality also a sin? How about premarital sex? Why are some things from the Old Testament omitted and others not? What criteria are you using to pick those beliefs?
How about different sects of Christianity who omit different things? Catholics practice Lent; I, raised as a Methodist, did not. Methodist ministers can marry; Catholic priests cannot. Both are Christians, both worship the same God, but they're doing different things? Are they both right? Both wrong? One right and one wrong? How do you resolve that?
Some Christians believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, others don't. Some believe that God created all as it is, and some believe that he got the ball rolling and things evolved from there? Who's right? By what criteria do you judge that?
As for having "proof" that God exists, you don't. You have FAITH. Once again, saying "We exist, thus God," is NOT LOGICALLY DIFFERENT than "We exist, thus Odin." NOT AT ALL. If you cannot provide a further rationale for your beliefs, then they are IRRATIONAL. If you want to prove that God exists, then you need direct, quantifiable evidence of his existence. If you cannot provide that evidence, then he most likely does not exist. If you use evidence as the foundation of your beliefs, then you are not a Christian. If you still think that he's bee "proven" to exist, in the total absence of evidence, then you have FAITH, and faith is inherently devoid of rationale.
And to the guy who said that people are the problem, not the institutions, I point out the Catholic church still refuses to accept the usage of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. If that's not an example of generating a problem, I don't know what is.
And - since we're on the topic here - all sins but one are forgivable
I deny the Holy Spirit. I deny its power, I deny its blessings, and I deny its very existence. I deny that I need or have ever needed grace. I deny these things earnestly, and have done so for as long as I have been able to reason, and will continue to do so for as long as I shall live.
Is that the one you're talking about? Does this mean I'll go to hell? I'm not joking about this. I honestly and pointedly deny anything and everything that the "Holy Spirit" is and ever could be.
Or are you referring to some other eternal sin?
I took communion with deceit in my heart, and denied the sacrament even as I pretended to care. I renounced my baptism before I even reached middle school. I attempted to excommunicate myself in parochial school. Have I hit the big one yet?
Suicide. No way to ask forgiveness for that one.
[removed because I misunderstood the direction of that statement]
How about me? I actually DID believe in God; I welcomed Jesus into my heart and everything. Then, after some time, I rejected that love, cast him out, denounced his teachings and his church, and never looked back.
Is there a special level of Hell for that?
EDIT: Here's a question. Let's say, hypothetically, that I gave up all my worldly possessions and dedicated the rest of my life, without pay, to fighting the AIDS pandemic in Africa. Let's say I save 1 million lives a year for the rest of my life and stop the worst viral plague the world has known. I also remain a staunch atheist, never going to church or welcoming God into my heart. Ever. I remain 100% secular, but I spend the rest of my natural life serving only mankind, for nothing in return.
And to the guy who said that people are the problem, not the institutions, I point out the Catholic church still refuses to accept the usage of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. If that's not an example of generating a problem, I don't know what is.
One of my biggest problems with the Church and something I feel should be overturned, along with women in the priesthood.
And to the guy who said that people are the problem, not the institutions, I point out the Catholic church still refuses to accept the usage of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. If that's not an example of generating a problem, I don't know what is.
One of my biggest problems with the Church and something I feel should be overturned, along with women in the priesthood.
Then why still pay homage to it? Clearly, your beliefs differ from theirs. Why not just cast it aside and believe what you want to believe? Why the guilt, why Hell, why the original sin and the self-denial and all that jazz? Why not just live an honest life as you wish, and do good things where you can, without having to sit in a stuffy church once a week and hear about what a wicked person you are?
This is the only point we need to discuss. You have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and information.
Are you are telling me I am irrational because of my claim of certainty? How can you know anything if you take everything to this extreme? You can't.
The universe exists, it had a beginning, and presumably an end. Its existence is either is due to either some unknown force, or God. Why is my choice to believe it was created by God irrational? Because this being doesn't show Himself to you? Because you choose to believe He does not exist? There are two explanations neither can be proven. The choice of something over nothing wins out in my mind. You on the other hand outright reject God as an option. You presume the burden of proof is on me, the believer. That is false, you cannot prove God isn't an option.
FSM was clearly the fabrication of Bobby Henderson. As a rational person I would (and do) believe that no such creature exists.
I've gone this far so I might as well say it. Yes, Rym if you truly reject God you are going to hell. That's the ugly part that some Christians are in denial about. You must believe. This might seem harsh, but it's the reality of the Christian faith. A bit of faith isn't really all that much to ask, but you get so much in return.
First, a claim of 100% certainty is irrational because you assume that you can control all variables. Do you know that you haven't been lied to this entire time? I mean, you probably believe in Santa Claus as a child, and he doesn't exist; why is it so difficult to believe that people might be making up other things too? 100% certainty DOES NOT exist, as far as I know.
Secondly, you cannot prove a negative, ever. If you were arrested and told to prove that you were NOT guilty of a crime, you'd probably go to jail. Do you regularly generate empirical evidence demonstrating what you were doing every second? Aside from that, the burden of proof is always on the extraordinary claim, and you're claiming that there's a being we can't see who controls everything. That's pretty damn extraordinary if you ask me.
Thirdly, I'm absolutely stunned that you deny the FSM as a creation of man but accept God as true divinity. It's been demonstrated time and time again that the Bible was written collaboratively, after the fact, by men, and that a lot was edited and omitted. God is as much a fabrication of man as anything else. If you do believe that it's a divinely inspired work, and therefore true, then I refer you to my previous question of why some of it can be cherry-picked. If it's God's true word, then you MUST follow all of it, or else you deny God's will; if ANY PART of the Bible is edited by man, then it is a work of man, and just as much a fabrication as the FSM.
Are you are telling me I am irrational because of my claim of certainty? How can you know anything if you take everything to this extreme? You can't.
YES. That is exactly what we are saying. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes. This is elementary school shit we are talking about here! This is the basis of all knowledge, logic, and reason. If you can't even understand that, then you can't understand anything. If you are incapable of comprehending this basic concept, then it is impossible to have any useful discourse about anything. It is the fundamental idea underlying all of philosophy and thought. If you don't understand "cogito, ergo sum", you are incapable of discussing what is true or what is false because you can not grasp the very essence of what truth and falsehood are.
What is truth? What is fact? What is knowledge? What is information? Without "Cogito, ergo sum" you have none of it. Cogito, ergo sum is the only statement that can survive a pass of methodic doubt. It is the only thing that is 100% true. This is not something that is debatable. This is the fundamental reality of the universe for every thing that is self-aware. It has been accepted and well understood by all of philosophy for centuries.
The fact that there are living educated adults who do not understand this is perhaps the most disconcerting thing I can imagine.
FSM was clearly the fabrication of Bobby Henderson. As a rational person I would (and do) believe that no such creature exists.
Have you studied the origins of Christianity? You might be surprised.
To expand on this a bit, that whole "great flood?" There are actually MANY stories of great floods, from many different ancient civilizations. In fact, I think there's some archaeological evidence pointing to a flood? You know what that all points to? The secular origins of the Bible. If a lot of cultures wrote about a flood, then sure, a flood probably happened. Then, a lot of people wrote stories about the flood and incorporated those stories into their doctrines. Shock and wonderment! People wrote stories to explain naturally occurring phenomena!
Besides, if I recall correctly, that great flood wiped out all humans aside from Noah and his family. That being the case, how do other cultures have stories about a great flood?
You on the other hand outright reject God as an option.
No, it's possible that our "universe" is some experiment set up by some otherworldly being. We could just be "mice in the cage." It's just astronomically unlikely.
You presume the burden of proof is on me, the believer. That is false, you cannot prove God isn't an option.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Listen to this. And again, it has never been posited that "god is not an option", only that it is an unlikely one.
FSM was clearly the fabrication of Bobby Henderson. As a rational person I would (and do) believe that no such creature exists.
Some would say that Christianity is as clearly a fabrication. And it is equally as likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and your God exist. Therefore, if you believe in one of them and not the other, you are irrational.
EDIT: Daww, I took too long typing it up! Read Scott's and WhaleShark's posts instead.
To expand on this a bit, that whole "great flood?" There are actually MANY stories of great floods, from many different ancient civilizations. In fact, I think there's some archaeological evidence pointing to a flood? You know what that all points to? The secular origins of the Bible. If a lot of cultures wrote about a flood, then sure, a flood probably happened. Then, a lot of people wrote stories about the flood and incorporated those stories into their doctrines. Shock and wonderment! People wrote stories to explain naturally occurring phenomena!
Not to mention to people who barely left their own town, a small regional flood would seem like the end of the world and make it seem like everything was under water, when really it was just your area and the people you had contact with.
Then why still pay homage to it? Clearly, your beliefs differ from theirs. Why not just cast it aside and believe what you want to believe? Why the guilt, why Hell, why the original sin and the self-denial and all that jazz? Why not just live an honest life as you wish, and do good things where you can, without having to sit in a stuffy church once a week and hear about what a wicked person you are?
Clearly. Clearly my belief in transubstantiation, the Trinity, the tenets of the Nicene Creed, the sacred nature of life, and that Jesus is the Son of God mean nothing compared to my belief in condoms. How ever did I so blindly stumble through life without you pointing out the hypocrisy of my belief in the use of birth control? /sarcasm
Here's the nice part for me: I am living an honest life as I wish, doing good things where I can. That and my Church is well-ventilated and the word "wicked" doesn't come up much. The words "love," "charity," "hope," "beauty," and "life" come up much more often.
It's a pity my previous post was either not read or not responded to, but this thread is certainly enjoyable enough that I'll post again.
This is the only point we need to discuss. You have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and information.
Are you are telling me I am irrational because of my claim of certainty? How can you know anything if you take everything to this extreme? You can't.
The universe exists, it had a beginning, and presumably an end. Its existence is either is due to either some unknown force, or God. Why is my choice to believe it was created by God irrational? Because this being doesn't show Himself to you? Because you choose to believe He does not exist? There are two explanations neither can be proven. The choice of something over nothing wins out in my mind. You on the other hand outright reject God as an option. You presume the burden of proof is on me, the believer. That is false, you cannot prove God isn't an option.
As I explained in my first post, there are a two things which I would call rational reasons to believe in Christianity. By necessity, these must be considered separately, and Hitchens does an excellent job of addressing this.
If a majority of scientific evidence is in favour of Christianity. (straightforward)
If belief in Christianity generates a positive outcome for yourself and the world. (i.e. a rational choice of a good outcome). This could be divided into at least two subsets
Arguments in favour of the system of morality that Christianity (morality is rational in that it aims to provide a good outcome for everyone)
Pascal's Wager (This is a very interesting class of argument)
So, if I can get all of those arguing here to agree with me to agree that the rational reasons for belief are evidence and outcome, then we can further the debate by branching out into each of these (and, of course, I'll be arguing as to why Christianity does a poor job with all three of those, though Hitchens has already done this).
FSM was clearly the fabrication of Bobby Henderson. As a rational person I would (and do) believe that no such creature exists.
If Bobby Henderson also supported his claim with the idea that the words of his letter were influenced by the FSM himself, then it would be no different from Christianity. In neither case can you prove that it was fabricated. If the mere fact that "it has not been disproved" is a rational reason for belief, then belief in the FSM is perfectly rational.
This only means you have free will. You have convinced yourself you can convince yourself. Your "universal truth" just has an incredibly limited scope.
The reason I have certainty is because of my faith. I understand my purpose for being, and I don't have to question my existence. I questioned my existence, weighed the evidence and decided that God was the correct answer. You will rationalize this forever and never make a decision. I took a stand using the evidence I had around me. I just see some of that evidence differently than you do.
Not everything can be reasoned away. If you meet a girl that seems to like you, would you reason the chances of her leaving you? Or do you accept her affection and respond in kind? If you do the former I can tell you she will leave.
The burden of proof is on the claim that cannot be proven - theism and atheism require the same level proof. It was said correctly the burden of proof is on the believer where it is belief in God, or belief that none exists.
I say the chance there is a God is very high, and it get higher everyday that we do not find an alternate answer to the creation of the universe. Your probability scale is screwed up because you don't trust that the Bible is fact.
This only means you have free will. You have convinced yourself you can convince yourself. Your "universal truth" just has an incredibly limited scope.
The reason I have certainty is because of my faith. I understand my purpose for being, and I don't have to question my existence. I questioned my existence, weighed the evidence and decided that God was the correct answer. You will rationalize this forever and never make a decision. I took a stand using the evidence I had around me. I just see some of that evidence differently than you do.
The burden of proof is on the claim that cannot be proven - theism and atheism require the same level proof. It was said correctly the burden of proof is on the believer where it is belief in God, or belief that none exists.
If you are attempting to construct any kind of argument, and by argument I don't even mean proof, just something that makes sense and is convincing, then if you take as "evidence" something that is inherently subjective, and depends wholly on your own view, then it cannot in any way be considered any real "evidence" at all.
I say the chance there is a God is very high, and it get higher everyday that we do not find an alternate answer to the creation of the universe. Your probability scale is screwed up because you don't trust that the Bible is fact.
Actually, you should have said that "If we take the Bible as being true, then God's existence is 100% certain". However, I hope you realise the obvious flaw inherent in such an attempt?
EDIT: I would like to continue this discussion, but before this can be done, I'd like to see your own, personal, rational reasoning for belief in God. Such a discussion cannot continue unless the reasoning is demonstrated. Why? It's simple. If you don't have a rational reason to believe in Christianity, then your belief in Christianity is irrational. As I said before, you should either give us solid evidence for the truth of your beliefs, or also a demonstration that your beliefs have, at the very least, an overall desirable impact on yourself, or on society as a whole. If, after you have said all you have to say, none of it meets those criteria, then by the definition of Rationality, your beliefs would indeed have to be irrational.
If you see evidence everywhere that a god created the world, how do you know it's not Marduk? If you were born in India, wouldn't you see the same natural evidence that Brahma created the world? If you were raised as a Scientologist, wouldn't you see "evidence" of thetans everywhere?
This only means you have free will. You have convinced yourself you can convince yourself. Your "universal truth" just has an incredibly limited scope.
The reason I have certainty is because of my faith. I understand my purpose for being, and I don't have to question my existence. I questioned my existence, weighed the evidence and decided that God was the correct answer. You will rationalize this forever and never make a decision. I took a stand using the evidence I had around me. I just see some of that evidence differently than you do.
Not everything can be reasoned away. If you meet a girl that seems to like you, would you reason the chances of her leaving you? Or do you accept her affection and respond in kind? If you do the former I can tell you she will leave.
The burden of proof is on the claim that cannot be proven - theism and atheism require the same level proof. It was said correctly the burden of proof is on the believer where it is belief in God, or belief that none exists.
I say the chance there is a God is very high, and it get higher everyday that we do not find an alternate answer to the creation of the universe. Your probability scale is screwed up because you don't trust that the Bible is fact.
This post clearly shows one thing. You are uneducated. Cogito, ergo sum does not show that you have free will. You don't understand the scientific method, or what constitutes evidence. You even go so far as to claim that you don't have to question your existence.
This is exactly the problem. You must question everything. The reason you believe in god is because you refuse to challenge that belief. My beliefs stand up against questioning. You can challenge whatever I say, but my beliefs hold. When your beliefs are challenged they crumble. Your only defense is that of a child. "I'm right because I know I'm right, so there!" "It's fair to question some beliefs, but others can't be questioned!"
You are so devoid of intellect, and so unlearned in the ways of western philosophy, that you are incapable of reason or rational discourse. In this entire thread you have yet to produce a single point that is not logically fallacious. If we are to continue, I think we need to seriously dumb down the conversation, since you seem incapable of comprehending what we have to say. To do this, I will return to a question I asked earlier in the thread, that I do not believe was answered.
If the story of Noah's ark is true, in what year, or range of years, did the so-called great flood occur?
I saw condemnations of eating shellfish, rules for selling slaves, and many, many things different in other bibles.
You should have finished reading. Towards the back there’s this guy named Jesus that shows up things change a bit. I think you would like Him. Start at Matthew, and go eat some crab.
I reread the Bible in its entirety. The Catholic Church states quite often that the entire Bible counts. So while this Jesus shows up, little changes. That condemnation of shellfish is technically still in effect.
I might point out that my statement you quoted was to show things in the Bible I had not remembered. That had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist. It was the disrespect of human rights which has been used as a justification by churches throughout history for persecution of so-called sinners. The idea of homosexuality being immoral astounds me.
You are so devoid of intellect, and so unlearned in the ways of western philosophy, that you are incapable of reason or rational discourse. In this entire thread you have yet to produce a single point that is not logically fallacious. If we are to continue, I think we need to seriously dumb down the conversation, since you seem incapable of comprehending what we have to say. To do this, I will return to a question I asked earlier in the thread, that I do not believe was answered.
While what you are saying is true Scott, this way of arguing with someone is not going to help them understand it. If you actually want to get him to listen, you can continue to attack his ideas but do not attack his intelligence, just because someone has grew up in a environment that is deficient of an education in how to critically think is not necessarily this person's fault. However by aggressively attacking the person along with their idea you are just helping them close off their mind and become more defensive. You cannot win people over by calling them stupid, you can win them over by methodically staying above name calling and illustrating your ideas to the best of your ability.
While what you are saying is true Scott, this way of arguing with someone is not going to help them understand it. If you actually want to get him to listen, you can continue to attack his ideas but do not attack his intelligence, just because someone has grew up in a environment that is deficient of an education in how to critically think is not necessarily this person's fault. However by aggressively attacking the person along with their idea you are just helping them close off their mind and become more defensive. You cannot win people over by calling them stupid, you can win them over by methodically staying above name calling and illustrating your ideas to the best of your ability.
Oh, I know. I've just resorted to that since I don't think it is possible. I'm beginning to think that some people, by nature or nurture, are incapable of reason. Their brains are, or have become, hard wired in such a way that rational thought is not a possibility for them. If this is the case, then trying to discuss anything with such a person is a complete waste of time. I would have a better time of trying to teach calculus to a rock.
In such cases I think it best to insult the person and drive them mad. In their anger they might do something which goes against the teachings in their religious texts. Then I, the supposedly evil atheist, can point and laugh from a moral high ground. Then perhaps the shame and regret will crush their puny minds and put them in a state in which maybe it is possible to rewire them.
Wouldn't it be better through with someone who you don't think at this time will be able to understand, to have a nice civil conversation, and when they leave the conversation they can say "well we didn't agree and I wasn't able to convince him but he was still fair and didn't call me stupid" I'm telling you that with my friends that were fundie christians, this is how I worked on them, we never called each other stupid and we just talked and talked until at some point in-between discussions they finally came around. While I never "won" any debates with them. After those debates they kept thinking about them and exploring on their own. You don't need to force an idea on someone. You only need to plant the seed and hope they find it on their own. We are all very set in our opinions and sometimes it takes a while to understand what someone is telling you when they test a long held belief.
(hopefully that came out right, trying to write while noone is looking at work ^_^)
I don't think civil conversation is possible. Conversation isn't even possible. Imagine a college professor lecturing someone who is crazed and gibbering. It is an exercise in total and utter futility. In that case, I just throw my hands up and just watch them gibber for my own amusement. It's a lot better than being frustrated.
Comments
Is that the one you're talking about? Does this mean I'll go to hell? I'm not joking about this. I honestly and pointedly deny anything and everything that the "Holy Spirit" is and ever could be.
Or are you referring to some other eternal sin?
I took communion with deceit in my heart, and denied the sacrament even as I pretended to care. I renounced my baptism before I even reached middle school. I attempted to excommunicate myself in parochial school. Have I hit the big one yet?
Speaking of the indigenous people of Australia, it seems like an odd decision by god to send his only son to a little section of the world to do some preaching. Not only did he do some yammering, he performed the odd miracle to further add to his legitimacy. Unfortunately for those stuck on this continent in the southern hemisphere they would not find out about this incredible occurrence until far later by way of missionaries. Now it doesn't take much for a story to become skewed at the best of time, let alone this tale of the greatest happening our young earth has seen, when it is being passed on so many years later. Seems like a raw deal. For the longest time they have been believing in false prophets as their creators, when somewhere on the other side of the flat planet someone is getting a personal demonstration of miracles from the big dogs son.
The last point I wanted to make is one that just reinforces the futility of this entire discussion. I have this Christian at work that goes to a church in which god performs miracles on a weekly basis. A man that had poor vision can now see clearly without glasses. That is one example of many that he has apparently witnessed with his own eyes. So while I see nothing but evidence for my views as an atheist, many religious folk actively see the hand of god at work in their daily lives. A point one of the early posts made. So it is impossible to really debate this. I know for a fact that if the baby jesus from Talladega Nights, game down and turned my water into wine, doubled my bread and set fire to my shrubbery, I'd probably believe in him too. My theory is that the mind is an incredibly powerful tool, capable of providing the most realistic of delusions. Fingers crossed it's me that is delusional so I can go to heaven and skip in joy while homosexuals burn in hell.
What if your parents have been lying to you all this time? What if your birth certificate is misprinted? What if everyone in the entire world has been playing a joke on you this entire time. We've all been pretending your name is Adam, when your name is actually Bob. It's possible. It might sound ludicrous, but you can not deny that it is possible. It's not probable, no it isn't probable. However, it is possible.
Can you disprove it? Can you prove the entire world has NOT been playing a joke on you? No, you can not disprove it. It is impossible to disprove. It is impossible for any evidence to exist that could disprove such a thing. You say that believing in a god is ok because it can not be disproven. Well, you can't disprove this worldwide conspiracy to keep your true name a secret from you. Therefore it is true, just as true as god.
This is the kind of twisted irrational logic you are using. Don't you see? It is very simple. Yet, you deny it endlessly. Is it because you don't want to admit your life has been a tremendous joke up to this point? Is it because you have ludicrous ideas in your head about how the world would be so terrible if you were wrong?
The reason we run around in circles is because our arguments are logical, while yours are not. You constantly are making appeals to antiquity, arguments ad populum. Every point you have made is completely devoid of logic or reason, and you fail to refute any point we have ever made with evidence. It's impossible to make a logical argument against someone who has no grasp on the very nature of logic. Read the bit about the penguins again. Do you really not understand it? Is it that hard?
I'm beginning to think that some, if not most, people's brains are just incapable of rational thought. If that were to be true, it would be more frightening than the wrath of any omnipotent deity.
The one point we have always made, always do make, and continue to make, is the lesson of the flying spaghetti monster. Can you refute it? Concentrate on that one point. Show one piece of real, observable, tangible evidence, that shows that the christian deity is more probable than the flying spaghetti monster. Just one. You can't do it. Nobody has done it. Nobody will. I challenge you to do so regardless, simply because it amuses me.
That's really the only unanswered question I have right now. I have NO problem with people cherry-picking ideas from their religion; in fact, that's the ONLY way I see it being useful. Use it as the philosophy it is intended to be.
Once you start cherry-picking, though, problems start arising. The Bible is the unequivocal word of God, is it not? If you say no, then you admit that it is a text written by man and not a divinely inspired work. If you say that it is the unequivocal word of God, then why do you only listen to parts of it?
Furthermore, why do you omit some parts but leave in others? OK, so you don't stone your wife to death for adultery (as well you shouldn't), but then why is homosexuality also a sin? How about premarital sex? Why are some things from the Old Testament omitted and others not? What criteria are you using to pick those beliefs?
How about different sects of Christianity who omit different things? Catholics practice Lent; I, raised as a Methodist, did not. Methodist ministers can marry; Catholic priests cannot. Both are Christians, both worship the same God, but they're doing different things? Are they both right? Both wrong? One right and one wrong? How do you resolve that?
Some Christians believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, others don't. Some believe that God created all as it is, and some believe that he got the ball rolling and things evolved from there? Who's right? By what criteria do you judge that?
As for having "proof" that God exists, you don't. You have FAITH. Once again, saying "We exist, thus God," is NOT LOGICALLY DIFFERENT than "We exist, thus Odin." NOT AT ALL. If you cannot provide a further rationale for your beliefs, then they are IRRATIONAL. If you want to prove that God exists, then you need direct, quantifiable evidence of his existence. If you cannot provide that evidence, then he most likely does not exist. If you use evidence as the foundation of your beliefs, then you are not a Christian. If you still think that he's bee "proven" to exist, in the total absence of evidence, then you have FAITH, and faith is inherently devoid of rationale.
And to the guy who said that people are the problem, not the institutions, I point out the Catholic church still refuses to accept the usage of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. If that's not an example of generating a problem, I don't know what is.
How about me? I actually DID believe in God; I welcomed Jesus into my heart and everything. Then, after some time, I rejected that love, cast him out, denounced his teachings and his church, and never looked back.
Is there a special level of Hell for that?
EDIT: Here's a question. Let's say, hypothetically, that I gave up all my worldly possessions and dedicated the rest of my life, without pay, to fighting the AIDS pandemic in Africa. Let's say I save 1 million lives a year for the rest of my life and stop the worst viral plague the world has known. I also remain a staunch atheist, never going to church or welcoming God into my heart. Ever. I remain 100% secular, but I spend the rest of my natural life serving only mankind, for nothing in return.
Do I go to heaven or hell?
The universe exists, it had a beginning, and presumably an end. Its existence is either is due to either some unknown force, or God. Why is my choice to believe it was created by God irrational? Because this being doesn't show Himself to you? Because you choose to believe He does not exist? There are two explanations neither can be proven. The choice of something over nothing wins out in my mind. You on the other hand outright reject God as an option. You presume the burden of proof is on me, the believer. That is false, you cannot prove God isn't an option.
FSM was clearly the fabrication of Bobby Henderson. As a rational person I would (and do) believe that no such creature exists.
I've gone this far so I might as well say it. Yes, Rym if you truly reject God you are going to hell. That's the ugly part that some Christians are in denial about. You must believe. This might seem harsh, but it's the reality of the Christian faith. A bit of faith isn't really all that much to ask, but you get so much in return.
First, a claim of 100% certainty is irrational because you assume that you can control all variables. Do you know that you haven't been lied to this entire time? I mean, you probably believe in Santa Claus as a child, and he doesn't exist; why is it so difficult to believe that people might be making up other things too? 100% certainty DOES NOT exist, as far as I know.
Secondly, you cannot prove a negative, ever. If you were arrested and told to prove that you were NOT guilty of a crime, you'd probably go to jail. Do you regularly generate empirical evidence demonstrating what you were doing every second? Aside from that, the burden of proof is always on the extraordinary claim, and you're claiming that there's a being we can't see who controls everything. That's pretty damn extraordinary if you ask me.
Thirdly, I'm absolutely stunned that you deny the FSM as a creation of man but accept God as true divinity. It's been demonstrated time and time again that the Bible was written collaboratively, after the fact, by men, and that a lot was edited and omitted. God is as much a fabrication of man as anything else. If you do believe that it's a divinely inspired work, and therefore true, then I refer you to my previous question of why some of it can be cherry-picked. If it's God's true word, then you MUST follow all of it, or else you deny God's will; if ANY PART of the Bible is edited by man, then it is a work of man, and just as much a fabrication as the FSM.
What is truth? What is fact? What is knowledge? What is information? Without "Cogito, ergo sum" you have none of it. Cogito, ergo sum is the only statement that can survive a pass of methodic doubt. It is the only thing that is 100% true. This is not something that is debatable. This is the fundamental reality of the universe for every thing that is self-aware. It has been accepted and well understood by all of philosophy for centuries.
The fact that there are living educated adults who do not understand this is perhaps the most disconcerting thing I can imagine.
Besides, if I recall correctly, that great flood wiped out all humans aside from Noah and his family. That being the case, how do other cultures have stories about a great flood?
EDIT: Daww, I took too long typing it up! Read Scott's and WhaleShark's posts instead.
Here's the nice part for me: I am living an honest life as I wish, doing good things where I can. That and my Church is well-ventilated and the word "wicked" doesn't come up much. The words "love," "charity," "hope," "beauty," and "life" come up much more often.
As I explained in my first post, there are a two things which I would call rational reasons to believe in Christianity. By necessity, these must be considered separately, and Hitchens does an excellent job of addressing this.
This could be divided into at least two subsets
So, if I can get all of those arguing here to agree with me to agree that the rational reasons for belief are evidence and outcome, then we can further the debate by branching out into each of these (and, of course, I'll be arguing as to why Christianity does a poor job with all three of those, though Hitchens has already done this). If Bobby Henderson also supported his claim with the idea that the words of his letter were influenced by the FSM himself, then it would be no different from Christianity.
In neither case can you prove that it was fabricated. If the mere fact that "it has not been disproved" is a rational reason for belief, then belief in the FSM is perfectly rational.
The reason I have certainty is because of my faith. I understand my purpose for being, and I don't have to question my existence. I questioned my existence, weighed the evidence and decided that God was the correct answer. You will rationalize this forever and never make a decision. I took a stand using the evidence I had around me. I just see some of that evidence differently than you do.
Not everything can be reasoned away. If you meet a girl that seems to like you, would you reason the chances of her leaving you? Or do you accept her affection and respond in kind? If you do the former I can tell you she will leave.
The burden of proof is on the claim that cannot be proven - theism and atheism require the same level proof. It was said correctly the burden of proof is on the believer where it is belief in God, or belief that none exists.
I say the chance there is a God is very high, and it get higher everyday that we do not find an alternate answer to the creation of the universe. Your probability scale is screwed up because you don't trust that the Bible is fact.
EDIT: I would like to continue this discussion, but before this can be done, I'd like to see your own, personal, rational reasoning for belief in God. Such a discussion cannot continue unless the reasoning is demonstrated.
Why? It's simple. If you don't have a rational reason to believe in Christianity, then your belief in Christianity is irrational. As I said before, you should either give us solid evidence for the truth of your beliefs, or also a demonstration that your beliefs have, at the very least, an overall desirable impact on yourself, or on society as a whole.
If, after you have said all you have to say, none of it meets those criteria, then by the definition of Rationality, your beliefs would indeed have to be irrational.
This is exactly the problem. You must question everything. The reason you believe in god is because you refuse to challenge that belief. My beliefs stand up against questioning. You can challenge whatever I say, but my beliefs hold. When your beliefs are challenged they crumble. Your only defense is that of a child. "I'm right because I know I'm right, so there!" "It's fair to question some beliefs, but others can't be questioned!"
You are so devoid of intellect, and so unlearned in the ways of western philosophy, that you are incapable of reason or rational discourse. In this entire thread you have yet to produce a single point that is not logically fallacious. If we are to continue, I think we need to seriously dumb down the conversation, since you seem incapable of comprehending what we have to say. To do this, I will return to a question I asked earlier in the thread, that I do not believe was answered.
If the story of Noah's ark is true, in what year, or range of years, did the so-called great flood occur?
I might point out that my statement you quoted was to show things in the Bible I had not remembered. That had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist. It was the disrespect of human rights which has been used as a justification by churches throughout history for persecution of so-called sinners. The idea of homosexuality being immoral astounds me.
In such cases I think it best to insult the person and drive them mad. In their anger they might do something which goes against the teachings in their religious texts. Then I, the supposedly evil atheist, can point and laugh from a moral high ground. Then perhaps the shame and regret will crush their puny minds and put them in a state in which maybe it is possible to rewire them.
(hopefully that came out right, trying to write while noone is looking at work ^_^)