drugs and prostitution

[Dorsia1]

Christopher Hitchens not a very good debater?

You can't be taken seriously.

[stahleyp]

Christopher Hitchens not a very good debater?

You can't be taken seriously.

 

Uhm... I suppose you haven't watched many debates.  Here's a review from one of your brethren: 

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

 

"Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. Perhaps Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” He did not even bother to give his concluding remarks, ceding the time instead to Q&A"

[kirkomi]

The idea of magic though, that's the problem. Let's say we lived in a world with magic. It could never be proven because the answer would always be "we just don't know how it works, but it's natural." Magic could never win the argument...even if it existed! Even if something transcended the laws of nature, you would never know it. You'd simply say "we don't know yet."

 

Well, if we kept explaining the magical things in that imaginary world of yours ... using something which is not magic then I would go with "we don't know yet".

[writser]

As far as the Quran goes, here is a link:

 

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

 

Here's more if you are really interested:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E9yaLOtiJU

 

Uhm... I suppose you haven't watched many debates.  Here's a review from one of your brethren: 

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

 

 

This was a while ago but a good read nonetheless. :)

 

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/

 

I don't think this is a very productive way of discussing the issue (as far as that is even possible).

 

You're wrong. Why? Just read this article, this article and watch this youtube video (it has only 3k views but it proves my point). And this one. Let's face the truth, neither side is going to click on the long list of links the other side posts in this topic or read the 10 books that are suggested to them. Also, you can find websites / youtube videos to support basically every view. Case in point: Jesus was a nazi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOb5vrUts9A . I guess you should denounce your faith now? Let's not turn this thread into a linkfest ..

[Mikenhe]

You know more about the resurrection than I do? Perhaps, but you haven't listed any books you've read yet (unless I missed it) to show how educated you are on the topic. 

 

Christopher Hitchens was very well read and educated on this subject and absolutely destroyed this nonsense.

Please educate us all on how one can be educated in superstition.

the bible is probably a good place to start... ;D ;D ;D

[stahleyp]

writser,

 

Just remember, I'm one of the few on this board (at least) who's gone deep into both sides of the argument. Sure, that doesn't make me "right" but it does mean that I'm trying to be intellectually honest and remove my biases.  ;)

[rkbabang]

Some are even talking about creating life forms that don't use the DNA code shared by the rest of life on earth (pointing to a common ancestor, btw) but a brand new code (not TAGC).

 

Craig Venter has been working on this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter#Synthetic_genomics

 

That's awesome!  So it is scientifically possible for a God to exist.  Now then, we just need to work on what created God.

 

 

Even if we figure out how to create new life (even non DNA based life) that wouldn't make us gods (omnipotent, omnipresent, and made up of pure moral stuff as Stahleyp things god is).  If we someday find evidence that life on Earth was created by some other being(s) that doesn't necessarily make them gods.

 

(Sorry for the reply to an old post, I just came back from a long unplugged vacation. I didn't even know about the BAC settlement or the stuff going on in MO until this morning, so I haven't been reading this topic in a while.)

[rkbabang]

I agree that if I want to convince you then the burden of proof is on me. Just as I would assert that if you want to insist to me that you know definitively there is no higher power then the burden of proof would be on you.

 

You can't prove a negative. The real, formal argument of atheists isn't really: "We know that no god(s) exists", it's "we don't see good reasons to believe in god(s), we looked at the supposed evidence and arguments in favor and found them lacking".

 

Religious people implicitly agree with this approach because they see no reason to believe in Zeus or Odin or Esege Malan or Kamuy and so they don't, they don't wait for proof that they don't exist. Atheists just go one god further.

 

I profess my ignorance from the rooftops. I strongly suspect that there is more to this existence then any of us are aware and I choose to live my life as such. I don't seek to convince you, I do hope to keep your mind open to the possiblity of something more however unlikely it strikes you.

 

As I said earlier, if some solid evidence for god(s) came up, I'd be the first one to change my mind. Same with alien abductions or whatever. So far I don't see good evidence, but if that changes, hey, that's fine. I want to be on the side of reality, believe in what's real. Believing in things for no good reason isn't a good thing to me. So far I see a lot of evidence for a mechanistic world, and nothing convincing for one with god(s). If that changes, I'll update.

 

All true.  And not only would I need strong evidence that god exists, but I would also need strong evidence that he is good.  What makes believers almost universally assume that he is moral?  What evidence is this based upon?  God is always described by followers as all-powerful. In my experience goodness and morality are not qualities I usually associate with power.  All-powerful is more likely to equate to pure-evil.  So, for me, proof that god(s) exists would send me on a quest to discover how to fight it, or at the very least hide from it or avoid it.  And if all else fails, die fighting it.

 

 

[stahleyp]

I agree that if I want to convince you then the burden of proof is on me. Just as I would assert that if you want to insist to me that you know definitively there is no higher power then the burden of proof would be on you.

 

You can't prove a negative. The real, formal argument of atheists isn't really: "We know that no god(s) exists", it's "we don't see good reasons to believe in god(s), we looked at the supposed evidence and arguments in favor and found them lacking".

 

Religious people implicitly agree with this approach because they see no reason to believe in Zeus or Odin or Esege Malan or Kamuy and so they don't, they don't wait for proof that they don't exist. Atheists just go one god further.

 

I profess my ignorance from the rooftops. I strongly suspect that there is more to this existence then any of us are aware and I choose to live my life as such. I don't seek to convince you, I do hope to keep your mind open to the possiblity of something more however unlikely it strikes you.

 

As I said earlier, if some solid evidence for god(s) came up, I'd be the first one to change my mind. Same with alien abductions or whatever. So far I don't see good evidence, but if that changes, hey, that's fine. I want to be on the side of reality, believe in what's real. Believing in things for no good reason isn't a good thing to me. So far I see a lot of evidence for a mechanistic world, and nothing convincing for one with god(s). If that changes, I'll update.

 

All true.  And not only would I need strong evidence that god exists, but I would also need strong evidence that he is good.  What makes believers almost universally assume that he is moral?  What evidence is this based upon?  God is always described by followers as all-powerful. In my experience goodness and morality are not qualities I usually associate with power.  All-powerful is more likely to equate to pure-evil.  So, for me, proof that god(s) exists would send me on a quest to discover how to fight it, or at the very least hide from it or avoid it.  And if all else fails, die fighting it.

 

A couple things, rk, any evidence we have about the existence of God would be denied by most atheists. They have a worldview that everything has a naturalistic explanation. So, if something happens that is related to God happens, it can be dismissed as a natural phenomenon that we simply don't yet understand. I'd imagine that even if God wrote something in the clouds and made things pretty apparent, many (if not most) would still dismiss it.

 

The other thing that I find strange is the consistency in the image of a deity (as far as morality goes or God's character). If we look at different religions, whether Abrahamic or otherwise, many of the core values are the same (not cheating people, sleeping around, killing, etc). One would think, if people are just making stuff up all the time, there would be more deities like the evil ones you mentioned.

 

As an aside, I was watching a video the other day about "junk DNA." For years, materialists assumed that "junk DNA" was just junk, as the name implies. After all, it makes sense: if we are the result of random processes there should be plenty of junk that that doesn't mean much. Scientists now, though, have started to realize that even the "junk dna" is important to our survival. Now, again this doesn't prove a deity, but it does show how one's world view may miss things due to bias.

[rkbabang]

I agree that if I want to convince you then the burden of proof is on me. Just as I would assert that if you want to insist to me that you know definitively there is no higher power then the burden of proof would be on you.

 

You can't prove a negative. The real, formal argument of atheists isn't really: "We know that no god(s) exists", it's "we don't see good reasons to believe in god(s), we looked at the supposed evidence and arguments in favor and found them lacking".

 

Religious people implicitly agree with this approach because they see no reason to believe in Zeus or Odin or Esege Malan or Kamuy and so they don't, they don't wait for proof that they don't exist. Atheists just go one god further.

 

I profess my ignorance from the rooftops. I strongly suspect that there is more to this existence then any of us are aware and I choose to live my life as such. I don't seek to convince you, I do hope to keep your mind open to the possiblity of something more however unlikely it strikes you.

 

As I said earlier, if some solid evidence for god(s) came up, I'd be the first one to change my mind. Same with alien abductions or whatever. So far I don't see good evidence, but if that changes, hey, that's fine. I want to be on the side of reality, believe in what's real. Believing in things for no good reason isn't a good thing to me. So far I see a lot of evidence for a mechanistic world, and nothing convincing for one with god(s). If that changes, I'll update.

 

All true.  And not only would I need strong evidence that god exists, but I would also need strong evidence that he is good.  What makes believers almost universally assume that he is moral?  What evidence is this based upon?  God is always described by followers as all-powerful. In my experience goodness and morality are not qualities I usually associate with power.  All-powerful is more likely to equate to pure-evil.  So, for me, proof that god(s) exists would send me on a quest to discover how to fight it, or at the very least hide from it or avoid it.  And if all else fails, die fighting it.

 

A couple things, rk, any evidence we have about the existence of God would be denied by most atheists. They have a worldview that everything has a naturalistic explanation. So, if something happens that is related to God happens, it can be dismissed as a natural phenomenon that we simply don't yet understand. I'd imagine that even if God wrote something in the clouds and made things pretty apparent, many (if not most) would still dismiss it.

 

The other thing that I find strange is the consistency in the image of a deity (as far as morality goes or God's character). If we look at different religions, whether Abrahamic or otherwise, many of the core values are the same (not cheating people, sleeping around, killing, etc). One would think, if people are just making stuff up all the time, there would be more deities like the evil ones you mentioned.

 

As an aside, I was watching a video the other day about "junk DNA." For years, materialists assumed that "junk DNA" was just junk, as the name implies. After all, it makes sense: if we are the result of random processes there should be plenty of junk that that doesn't mean much. Scientists now, though, have started to realize that even the "junk dna" is important to our survival. Now, again this doesn't prove a deity, but it does show how one's world view may miss things due to bias.

 

There are certainly some who would never change their world view regardless of evidence, there are always people like that.  The easiest examples are in the religious populations who still think the Earth is around 5000 years old.    Scientists can be like that too.  It can be influenced by refusing to admit long held beliefs can be wrong, or even by politics (i.e. animal fats are bad for you).  But in the long run those old stubborn people are replaced by young inquisitive people and science goes where the evidence leads it.  This is the main reason that religion will eventually die out all together, in my opinion.  Unless of course some evidence for the existence of a god is ever discovered.

 

I just can't without evidence make myself believe in something (like an afterlife) simply because it would be nice to not die, or because it would be great to think that grandma is in a "better place".    You mentioned in a previous post that "we all believe what we want to believe".  But that is only true with the people of faith.  There are all kinds of things that I'd love to believe, but don't.  Humanity is still in the process of pulling itself (kicking and screaming) up to being thinking, civilized animals and ridding itself of faith (believing that our own wishful thinking is actually reality just because we want it to be) is just one of those things that will need to go in the process.  The universe is what it is. Our beliefs don't change anything about reality, but they can hold us back from progressing (and historically they have).

 

The fact that we didn't understand that "junk DNA" actually did something and later found out that it might, is just the process of adding to our knowledge as more evidence comes in.  There is no Church of the DNA which proclaims that junk DNA does nothing because it has been written and any evidence to the contrary is blasphemy.  New evidence is found, our knowledge changes or is added to.  That is how it is supposed to work.  There is no faith, no gospel, no church, no absolutes.  Nothing is stated unequivocally and unchanging.  Nothing for which there is no evidence can be said to exist.

 

And if there is a theory that would explain something, for which no direct evidence is yet available (such as all the various string theories, or the multiverse theory) they are considered to be highly speculative until an experiment can be thought of which could be explained no other way (i.e. some evidence is found).  Rational people don't go around preaching the multiverse theory door to door and trying to get people to have faith in it.  If it turns out to be correct great, if not, no one is going to behead anyone over it. 

 

God is nothing more than speculation.  It is at most (and I'm being generous here) a theory that could explain some gaps in our knowledge. But while god would explain some things it would create more questions and problems than it solves.  If evidence is found that supports a creator, then we would now have to ask:  Who is he?  What is he? Where did he come from?  How and why did he create the universe?  Has he created others? Is our universe just one experiment in his laboratory?  Maybe we have free will because we were created and are being observed, but our creator doesn't really give a rats ass what we do anymore than we would care what rats in our lab experiments do.  Evidence of a creator would not be evidence for a god.

 

I find the prospect that we are simply a simulation more likely to be true than that we are created by an all powerful god.  The argument goes like this:  If intelligent beings ever get to the point when they can harness all of the matter in their solar system/galaxy/universe/etc to perform computations, will they ever run ancestor simulations to increase their knowledge of where they came from?  If so they would run many many such simulations. And thus we are more likely to be part of one of those simulations than we are to be the original beings in the process of evolving to that point.  So the answer is that either we will never get to the point where we can run many ancestor simulations or we are more likely to be simply a part of one.  Maybe the quantum world is just an approximation of the continuous reality of the real universe used by the simulation to save processing power?

 

The point is that we don't know any of the answers to these things.  There is no need to have "faith" in any one possible answer, when the real answer is that there is no evidence, so we don't know.  And all wishful thinking aside, humans may never know.  Not knowing is OK, pretending you know is not.

 

[stahleyp]

rk,

 

As I've said before, I'd prefer for you to be correct: no deity. Life would be much less stressful (and quite a bit more fun) to not live a life like what we "should" but rather how we'd "want". So many of these values that many of us claim to admire, charity, integrity, honesty, etc stem directly from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Science can not say that any of these are "good" but can only say that they help promote society. I don't know about that though. Look at charity: we are, intentionally, helping those that "lost" the genetic battle and are, quite possibly hurting our DNA but keeping their DNA in the system. The whole idea of "ethics" is actually dubious for human advancement. I'd imagine we'd get a lot further with medicine if we didn't have all these medical ethics around. We could take bigger risks and make bigger advances.

 

Now, if I look at the world and universe, it leads me to believe a deity is more like than not. Let's say if there were no god, one would think we'd not be even having the discussion. Either things wouldn't exist or, if it did, it would be some non-life forms. Now, granted this in no ways proves a deity but, I think we can all agree that it is a bigger jump to have life from nonlife than nonlife from nonlife. A mindless, random explosion would be more likely to happen with the latter (the more simple option).

 

Or, I also find it strange about all these near death experiences and the associated stories. Again, this doesn't prove a deity exists but one would think we'd see many more people with a "lights out" experience after death than what we see from these actually experiences. I know that DMT produces similar results but from what I've read, people view the near death experiences as more real than the DMT. This doesn't prove a deity but, again, it is suggestive of a deity or life beyond what we know.

 

As far as the idea of God and who he is, religious texts try to explain this (whether they are right or wrong, I suppose one day we'll all find out).

 

But here's my understanding: God is the creator of the universe. God exists outside of space and time. He is "love" and our inner voice is God trying to get us to do the "right thing." We have the ability to go against that though.

 

And let's not pretend we really understand the universe either, rk. A lot of what we think we know is simply based on models. Remember the financial crisis? A lot of those formulas were based on the work of physicists. If we don't understand an economy, how in the world (or universe, rather) should we have a bunch of confidence we know how the universe works? Indeed if the universe is simply luck, why should we even trust the ideas of one of the outcomes of that process - our brains? Our brains are a byproduct of random outcomes. How is that trustworthy?

[Patmo]

God is the adult version of santa claus, the boogeyman, etc. Literally no more and no less. There has never been magic, and there never will be. This is such a simple issue to me that I have a hard time understanding how people even have arguments regarding this, let alone all the other bullshit.

 

I was waiting for the bus a couple years ago when some priest started yelling at me (so much for live and let live) after I answered his query that no, I did not believe in god. "How do you explain the universe?!?!?", he shouts. The same way you explain everything else, keep trying until you figure it out. If god is merely a placeholder for human ignorance, it's a pretty weak god. We've been defeating it little by little for millennia now.

 

 

[stahleyp]

God is the adult version of santa claus, the boogeyman, etc. Literally no more and no less. There has never been magic, and there never will be. This is such a simple issue to me that I have a hard time understanding how people even have arguments regarding this, let alone all the other bullshit.

 

I was waiting for the bus a couple years ago when some priest started yelling at me (so much for live and let live) after I answered his query that no, I did not believe in god. "How do you explain the universe?!?!?", he shouts. The same way you explain everything else, keep trying until you figure it out. If god is merely a placeholder for human ignorance, it's a pretty weak god. We've been defeating it little by little for millennia now.

 

I don't think God is a placeholder for human ignorance. It's more like a natural human longing. I know of no culture - regardless of time or geography that didn't have a big place for a deity. I can think of plenty of cultures who don't have Santa Claus or a boogeyman though.

 

If it's such a "weak argument" one would think that pretty smart people like Taleb would have gotten rid of it a while ago.

[kevin4u2]

There is... no absolutes.

 

Rk, are you absolutely sure?

[rkbabang]

There is... no absolutes.

 

Rk, are you absolutely sure?

 

Yes absolutely.  :)

 

What I meant is that since we will never know everything there is to know, nothing we do know can ever be considered an absolute.  It is subject to change when we acquire additional knowledge.  So yes, there are absolutely no absolutes.

 

 

 

 

 

[rkbabang]

rk,

 

So many of these values that many of us claim to admire, charity, integrity, honesty, etc stem directly from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

That is just simply untrue.  It is a case of jumping in front of the parade and pretending to lead it.  All of those traits/values existed before Judaism and Christianity and they will all exist after it (if humans still exist).

[stahleyp]

rk,

 

So many of these values that many of us claim to admire, charity, integrity, honesty, etc stem directly from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

That is just simply untrue.  It is a case of jumping in front of the parade and pretending to lead it.  All of those traits/values existed before Judaism and Christianity and they will all exist after it (if humans still exist).

 

 

Please tell me then, exactly, other texts as old as Jewish ones, that discuss these in length.

[rkbabang]

rk,

 

So many of these values that many of us claim to admire, charity, integrity, honesty, etc stem directly from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

That is just simply untrue.  It is a case of jumping in front of the parade and pretending to lead it.  All of those traits/values existed before Judaism and Christianity and they will all exist after it (if humans still exist).

 

 

Please tell me then, exactly, other texts as old as Jewish ones, that discuss these in length.

 

 

I'm no expert on ancient books, but if you were to dig up the earliest known in dept writings on humans suffering pain, would you conclude that before that book humans did not feel pain?  If you were to find the earliest known book discussing murder, would you conclude that no human had committed murder before that time?    People think about and write about things because they already exist.  That is certainly the case for morals and charity.  I find your whole thesis that these things somehow come from religion completely absurd.  It is putting the cart before the horse.  People are susceptible to religious indoctrination, because religion plays on these social feelings that we already have.  You are confusing correlation with causation.

 

[stahleyp]

rk, I'm not expecting an expert on ancient books. I'd simply like some texts older than Judaism (like you claimed) that discussed, in depth (like Judaism) does on how to lead a moral life.

 

From the bit of research I've done, I find this structure unique. For most other religions, like Roman religions, it was more like "Approval from the gods did not depend on a person’s behavior, but on accurate observance of religious rituals. Each god needed an image – usually a statue or relief in stone or bronze – and an altar or temple at which to offer prayers and sacrifices."

 

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/worship.html

 

I don't think morality was a big part of any of them. If you can find some examples (rather than making possibly wrong assumptions) I'd love to hear them.

[rkbabang]

rk, I'm not expecting an expert on ancient books. I'd simply like some texts older than Judaism (like you claimed) that discussed, in depth (like Judaism) does on how to lead a moral life.

 

From the bit of research I've done, I find this structure unique. For most other religions, like Roman religions, it was more like "Approval from the gods did not depend on a person’s behavior, but on accurate observance of religious rituals. Each god needed an image – usually a statue or relief in stone or bronze – and an altar or temple at which to offer prayers and sacrifices."

 

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/worship.html

 

I don't think morality was a big part of any of them. If you can find some examples (rather than making possibly wrong assumptions) I'd love to hear them.

 

 

If you are looking for more religious examples (remember I said I wrote a term paper on Zoroastrianism) look at Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism.  It was the first monotheistic religion it pre-dated Judaism by as much as a thousand years.  Zoroaster preached that there was one god "Ahuramazda" and he had a doctrine of morality (good vs. evil, truth vs. lies, etc) and included the concept of free will.  IIRC it is the oldest religion still practiced in the world today.  Judaism and Christianity borrowed heavily from it.  But I am not going to tell you that Zoroaster invented morality.

[stahleyp]

I'm somewhat familiar with Zoroastrianism. I'll have to look more into it though.  I know a bit about it but I'm sure you have me beat. Believe it or not...I dated a girl who was Zoroastrian.

[rkbabang]

I'm somewhat familiar with Zoroastrianism. I'll have to look more into it though.  I know a bit about it but I'm sure you have me beat. Believe it or not...I dated a girl who was Zoroastrian.

 

That is pretty cool.  I've never met a Zoroastrian.  I haven't read though the whole page, but here's the wikipedia entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

 

When I did my 200 page paper in the early 90's there was no wikipedia. :(