D
Darrel
Guest
Nope just forgot wrap it in quotes lol.
-D
- Status
-D
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Because the door swings in both directions. Theists always talk about the evil atheist realms of [insert abitrary 20th century dictator here].
Here is one: A couple of years ago Bavarian exorcists terrorised a mentally ill child until she died. All in the name of God, driving out demons. :whacky: That I call a religiously motivated atrocity.
Btw, can you list some current atrocity done by atheists MOTIVATED BY their atheism?
Yes, right, what’s the point? It is the individuals who commit the atrocities not the worldview or religion itself.
D
Darrel
Guest
That clears things up thanks.
Sounds like an error at face value. … link?
No I dont have my handy list of bad Atheist handy. Is there a central Atheist source of info I can reference?
I would agree, there is no point.
-D
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I was wrong about the time, it was 1976 (no Internet back then) in Würzburg. The exorcism was done by a Jesuit pater and approved by the local bishop.
Ok, that’s not really a current issue, but not that long ago.
theologe.de/theologe9.htm
D
Darrel
Guest
Thank You,
The site is German which I cant read. The main issue here is that this (may) have been an error. But there is no policy in the Catholic Church that endorces any systemic attrocities like ancient practices. The Church in this time is a Church that seeks the good of humanity and has ever sought the salvation of souls. I dont understand the details this exorcism but plenty are performed that do not result in the death of the victim. This sounds like a fluke or mis-information.
-D
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I am sorry, that I didn’t find an English resource. There are several sites on the net but they are all in German. That case went through the serious press those days, it is no joke.
“The Church” is no anonymous hidden concept, it is made up by their members. And official representatives of the Church were primarily responsible for that death. A bishop ranks quite highly doesn’t he?
Please don’t get me wrong on this. I don’t blame “the Catholics” nor “the Christians” for that. Nor God. I blame the geeks who did that. And the philosophy behind it.
4
4_marks
Guest
You are correct. Stereotyping and generalizing about others in such broad-sweeping terms is inaccurate at best, and may be downright mean-spirited. There are atheists who are seemingly more moral than many professed Christians based upon their outward actions. I, for one, certainly prefer a passionate and thinking atheist to a complacent person who claims to be a Christian.
T
TheGarg
Guest
Unfortunatley Tulkas, you can only set the record straight for yourself. I try not to make blanket statements about athiests as well, but somtimes it slips. I know alot of atheist that are not just athiest, but vehemotely anti-christian and anit-christianity, meaning they hate the people as well as their belief.
On the other hand, We respectful christians appreciate peaceful athiest, who are up for discussion and not making personal attacks.
You have made big mistake by critisizing what the Catholic Church “covets”. Since you don’t know the first thing about Christ’s Church, then please don’t make such statements. They are insulting.
in your words:
“It is very insulting, and i beg you to please be educated on the matter before we post such things in an already naive community.”
Please don’t do what you ask others not to do.
Peace of the Lord be with you.
J
john_doran
Guest
well this isn’t right…elementary logic dictates that lack of evidence of existence is not the same as evidence of non-existence.
in the absence of evidence either way, the logical response is to suspend belief - it is not to disbelieve.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
I like to add, the lack of evidence of non-existence is not the same as evidence of existence.
Quite right.
I like to add, the lack of evidence of non-existence is not the same as evidence of existence.
E
eptatorata
Guest
john doran:
True, there is a semantic difference.
This is debatable. If this were a logical puzzle, I would agree, but the actual problem is of a probabilistic nature. If one evaluates the chances of credible evidence in support of the opposing position as approximately zero, then it is justifiable to enter a state of active disbelief until such evidence has been presented.
J
john_doran
Guest
probability has got nothing to do with it: this is rock-bottom epistemology: if your assumption is that evidence is required for justified belief, then it’s straightforwardly self-contradictory to stipulate that belief in ~x is justifiable on the basis of a lack of evidence.
what you’re suggesting, in essence, is that you need evidence for reasonable belief, except when evidence is not likely to be forthcoming, in which case you can believe without evidence. what sense does that make?
and what do you do when evidence neither for nor against a proposition is possible? believe both x and ~x? which is presumably the position atheists find themselves in, at least those who liken belief in god to belief in invisible pink monkeys: god becomes an entity which is in principle incapable of standing in evidential relations of any kind.
what then?
i mean, if there’s no evidence for ~x, then, by your lights, belief in x is warranted. which would place theists well within their epistemic rights.
E
eptatorata
Guest
john doran:
This is another way of saying that I apply a different standard of proof depending on the claim.
Please note I have never offered an opinion of whether and when theists are justified in their belief. It is a game that I don’t play; if somebody sincerely believes, then that is the end of it. It is up to the individual to justify their beliefs if they chose to.
We apparently disagree about the problem domain. You view the question of god’s existence, E, as a logical proposition that can be either shown to be true or false, or the answer remains indeterminate, perhaps even provably so. I agree with you as far as that goes. However, to me E is not a logical puzzle, but a pragmatic problem. If the side that supports E has failed to produce any credible evidence, and not for the want of trying, I consider myself justified in evaluating the probability of supporting evidence to be forthcoming as close to zero. If you wish, I remain epistemologically uncommitted, but in a state of pragmatic disbelief.
This is another way of saying that I apply a different standard of proof depending on the claim.
Please note I have never offered an opinion of whether and when theists are justified in their belief. It is a game that I don’t play; if somebody sincerely believes, then that is the end of it. It is up to the individual to justify their beliefs if they chose to.
J
john_doran
Guest
well, i don’t think there’s anything such thing as a “logical” propositions: there are propositions, period.
i also disagree that there is a difference between what you’re calling “pragmatics” and epistemology - belief is by definition pragmatic: it’s something you do. and if you’re going to do it reasonably, you have to follow the rules.
fair enough. but keep in mind that the claim to which i am objecting is an epistemological one: namely, that one can be justified in counting lack of evidence of existence as evidentially equivalent to evidence of non-existence. which is simply false.
if, however, you are just claiming that this is a question you in fact ignore, willy-nilly, in terms of your day-to-day believings, then that’s up to you. but your ignoring it doesn’t make it any more warranted a thing to do, epistemically. it’s just that you don’t care. and that’s that.
E
eptatorata
Guest
john doran:
While I don’t fully agree with your assessment, this is a good point to acknowledge that we are both entrenched in our positions.
S
SamCA
Guest
Altruism is instinctual. It can be overcome, just as any other instinct can be overcome, but it’s there in most people. On the level of self-interest, I, and most others, have found that the more altruistically everyone behaves, the higher everyone’s quality of life is.
Beyond that, empathy and sympathy. When I see another suffering, I experience sympathetic emotional distress on his behalf. I know it is bad when I suffer; from this, I am able to make the leap that it is also bad when you suffer.
Since there is, I think, probably no greater purpose or grand design, I am free to choose to harm others or help them. Having experienced harm myself, I would rather help.
S
SamCA
Guest
I wouldn’t go this far. There are actually a few logical arguments which argue quite strongly in favor of a creator, the anthropic principle of the cosmos probably being the strongest.
In fact, if we ever find a way to show that we live in a singular universe, or one of a small number of universes that have ever existed – that is, if there isn’t an infinite number of universes – then the anthropic principle becomes something very close to a logical proof that the universe as we know it was designed to allow for life as we know it to exist.
Of course, there are a number of strong theories that do in fact posit an infinity of universe, which would pretty much negate the anthropic principle. But there are still other arguments, and to say that logic precludes God isn’t accurate.
A
adnauseum
Guest
The moral roots of atheism are found in pop-culture, whatever is the fad of the day.
Notice the materialist opened the thread saying it was wrong to dismiss atheists because it was a “negative stereotype.”
You know, I looked, and unless my Greek is faulty, I didn’t see “negative stereotype” discussed by any of the great philosophers in history.
Your point is a very good one. Materialism wraps itself in the slogans of the day.
E
eptatorata
Guest
The antropic principle will never amount to much of anything, unless you presuppose that there is any objective significance to life as we know it.
S
SamCA
Guest
This is not, scientifically speaking, true. Instinct is toward survival of the species, not the individual. There are loads of animals who will instinctively sacrifice themselves in defense of their children, or their herd, or their tribe. Altruism is hard-wired into many animals, because altruism improves your herd’s, tribe’s, or even species’ chances of survival.
There is evidence of instinctive altruism in human beings, as well.
I have considered this idea at length. I don’t see why it is necessarily true. Obviously any conception of reality includes either something which existed eternally, or something that created itself ex nihilo. Christians believe that God has always existed; I see no reason why the universe itself could not have existed, in some form (see below), eternally.
Re: Some form – the universe has probably only existed in its current form for some billions of years. But there are a number of cosmological theories which would allow for an infinite, transitory universe. For instance, consider the cyclical “Big Bang, expansion, slowing expansion, contraction, Big Crunch, repeat” model that has been suggested by some astrophysicists.
One could ask, “What created that cycle?” But one could just as easily ask, “What created God?” If we can believe that the latter has always existed, why not the former?
I would consider that a wildly optimistic estimate, myself.
Perhaps the stupid ones do. There are, after all, stupid atheists, just like there are stupid people in every group.
I haven’t done as much reading into miracles as I would like to, I’ll admit. However, what reading I have done has found an interesting fact – all those non-Catholic religions profess miracles, too. In fact, it isn’t just Christians who report them. Hindus claim get miracles corresponding to their faith, too. So do pretty much everyone else.
Why should I weigh your miracles any more heavily than theirs?
An entirely humanistic one. I don’t like it when bad things happen to me. You don’t like it when bad things happen to you. Since we both agree that it sucks when bad things happen to us, why don’t we agree not to do bad things to each other?
I’m descended from a long line of agnostics. I still wound up with a sense of ethics.
A hefty portion of the founding fathers were deists. A few were atheists. The Constitution is based in the ideals of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Voltaire – who weren’t exactly Christians. Voltaire, for instance, is the guy who coined the conception of the Watchmaker God, who creates the universe to function according to a set of natural laws and then steps back and has nothing further to do with it.
Patently untrue. Even the founding fathers who were Christian weren’t Catholics. They were Protestants who viewed the Catholic Church as corrupt at best, monstrous at worst.
On the contrary, there are a great many Americans who feel we haven’t moved far enough away from the Church’s teachings, and see every step toward them as making America worse.
It wouldn’t be much of a Culture War if everybody agreed with your side, would it?
In my experience, atheists aren’t atheists because of the lifestyle they want to lead. They come to the conclusion that there is no God for other reasons, and their lifestyle changes accordingly. (That was certainly true in my case.)
I would say that’s true – but I don’t consider it any more likely to be your God than I do Zeus, Vishnu, or Odin.
(Personally, I’m hoping the Buddhists are right. I don’t think they are either, but if I have to back a horse…)
- Status