The God Questions

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

While this sounds nice, retaining a belief in a deity is not compatible with atheism. As long as there is some criteria involved in being an atheist, there is such a thing as a wrong answer; one cannot be a "free-thinking atheist" and come to the conclusion that a God exists. Therefore, it is pushing a specific belief system while excluding others. An "atheism convention," then, celebrates this belief system while condescending those that are incompatible with it. How is there not, to some degree, groupthink involved here?

It's free thinking because you aren't tied to any preconceptions that there is a god. You're free to rely solely on the evidence without being influenced by dogma. No truly logical thought can lead toward a belief in god. I would also argue that, given proof, most atheist would be willing to admit the existence. The difference being, like science in general, you can hold a belief and be willing to amend that belief in the face of new evidence. That can't be said for religion.

Otherwise you're saying you can't be a free thinker and believe in evolution because creationism is a wrong anwser. How can you believe in anything and be considered a free thinker by those standards?

[INDY500]

Here's a few early religious wars.

God commanded that Israel kill the Canaanites around 1400 B.C. for their wickedness.

In the second century B.C. the Seleucid Greek king Antiochus Epiphanies IV tried to eliminate the Hebrew religion; he banned its practice, killed Jews that would not worship the pagan gods of Greece and desecrated the Temple at Jerusalem. In fact, Hanukkah is the observance of the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem after the Maccabean Revolt.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

No truly logical thought can lead toward a belief in god.

That's absurd. For one thing what's wrong with the logic that an ordered world might hint at a creator or that the existence of good and evil require an external, objective source?

For another thing, some the greatest Christian apologists and writers are ex-atheists or agnostics that came to their faith in the course of trying to disprove the existence of God. Here's one:

Prager University: The Four Big Bangs - YouTube

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

That's absurd. For one thing what's wrong with the logic that an ordered world might hint at a creator or that the existence of good and evil require an external, objective source?

For another thing, some the greatest Christian apologists and writers are ex-atheists or agnostics that came to their faith in the course of trying to disprove the existence of God. Here's one:

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a god. That's why they call it faith. It doesn't follow that the existence of order hints at a creator. I'm talking about empirical evidence, of which there is none. Unless you've got some to share with the class? (If it's candy, you better have enough for everyone)

For every ex-atheist you show me, I can show you 10 ex-theists. And every single one of them we list will be completely irrelevant to the issue

[Jive Turkey]

Ok, I just watched that video. Apart from now being upset with you for wasting my 5 minutes, that guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about and is just trotting out the same old creationist 'arguments' that have been successfully and easily refuted a thousand times over("the chance of the universe creating life is 100000000000000000 to one". yaaaaawn). He doesn't have a clue. If part of his reason for becoming a born again Christian was the realization that "wait a minute... animals can't appreciate art", then you can happily have him on your team. Poor example, Indy

[Jive Turkey]

And after watching the video, I wasn't surprised to find this

"As Prager University is not an accredited degree-granting university, its name has been criticized as pretentious and misleading. In fact, they are on the strict meaning the completely antagonistic idea to a University, as they are biased and "teach" things that are not the standard thought for a serious study.[6] Prager University has also been criticized for emphasizing only conservative political views in its videos though many are about seemingly "non-political" topics, including happiness and morality. Additionally, much of its material has a serious anti-science and ultra-conservative bias."

And this is the guy who started it? 'It' being an online 'school' that produces 5 minute videos to 'educate' its 'students'
Indy, Indy, Indy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager


Seriously, man. check your references

[INDY500]

I know who Dennis Prager is and he started the series for one expliciate reason which is on the banner... Undoing the damage of the University... five minutes at a time. It's a conservative thing.

"much of its material has a serious anti-science and ultra-conservative bias."

Dennis Prager is not anti-science he's anti-scientism, as am I. To co-opt your language, no truly logical thought can lead toward a belief that science alone can render truth about the world, reality and the nature of man.

And I'll gladly watch any video you can post that disproves the existance of God in 5 minutes or less.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's free thinking because you aren't tied to any preconceptions that there is a god. You're free to rely solely on the evidence without being influenced by dogma. No truly logical thought can lead toward a belief in god. I would also argue that, given proof, most atheist would be willing to admit the existence. The difference being, like science in general, you can hold a belief and be willing to amend that belief in the face of new evidence. That can't be said for religion.

Otherwise you're saying you can't be a free thinker and believe in evolution because creationism is a wrong anwser. How can you believe in anything and be considered a free thinker by those standards?

There are a number of assumptions about Christians that you make here that don't apply to me at all. I'm not sure what you mean by atheists lacking the "preconception" that there is a God. Are you saying that free thinkers shouldn't have beliefs about anything, or, rather, let them influence their judgment in any way? I certainly believe in God yet am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. There may be no God. I don't know with 100% certainty. Am I, then, a free thinker? Or is there something else I need to do to establish myself as one? Granted, empirical evidence disproving God has never swayed my opinion, but empirical evidence disproving God also doesn't exist. So yeah.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I

And I'll gladly watch any video you can post that disproves the existance of God in 5 minutes or less.

As soon as you post a video that disproves the existence of dragons

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Undoing the damage of the University

What does this even mean?

And what is "scientism"? Is that a made up word for when one doesn't like the answers science gives?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

There are a number of assumptions about Christians that you make here that don't apply to me at all. I'm not sure what you mean by atheists lacking the "preconception" that there is a God. Are you saying that free thinkers shouldn't have beliefs about anything, or, rather, let them influence their judgment in any way? I certainly believe in God yet am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. There may be no God. I don't know with 100% certainty. Am I, then, a free thinker? Or is there something else I need to do to establish myself as one? Granted, empirical evidence disproving God has never swayed my opinion, but empirical evidence disproving God also doesn't exist. So yeah.

There's no empirical evidence disproving leprechauns either. That's hardly a convincing stance

I don't know what your beliefs are. But i do know that religious dogma is the opposite of free thought

[LemonMelon]

Now you're just being flippant about it.

[Jive Turkey]

Ironically, in the South Park episode I'm watching, a History Channel talking head just said "There is certainly no evidence that the first Thanksgiving dinner wasn't haunted"

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Now you're just being flippant about it.

I don't know what you want me to say though. I can't change its definition

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

no truly logical thought can lead toward a belief that science alone can render truth about the world, reality and the nature of man.

this doesn't mean anything.

Science has been chipping away at all of these things for centuries. What has religion done?

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

As soon as you post a video that disproves the existence of dragons

You can't prove that dragons exist and I can't prove that dragons don't exist. Thus, there's clearly a 50% chance that they do exist. Universities may have corrupted the study of statistics, but this is just logic.

[Kieran McConville]

Well actually you can prove that dragons and leprechauns don't exist. These kind of examples that get thrown out are just flippant. They're mythical creatures (emphasis on creatures), they don't exist, they never existed in any literal sense. If they did exist they would exist as flesh and blood and it's relatively easy to take a look around and see that, nope, they aren't there (setting aside the difficulties of keeping track of species with very few members).

God is a very different proposition.

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What does this even mean?

And what is "scientism"? Is that a made up word for when one doesn't like the answers science gives?

It means education is dangerous. It's the atheist liberal media's way of tricking us into not believing everything we're told just because someone said it was true. They do it through witchcraft and should be burned at five minute intervals or until brown and crisp.

[LJT]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Here's a few early religious wars.

God commanded that Israel kill the Canaanites around 1400 B.C. for their wickedness.

In the second century B.C. the Seleucid Greek king Antiochus Epiphanies IV tried to eliminate the Hebrew religion; he banned its practice, killed Jews that would not worship the pagan gods of Greece and desecrated the Temple at Jerusalem. In fact, Hanukkah is the observance of the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem after the Maccabean Revolt.

First one is not a religious war, the only evidence for that reason is in the bible. Archaeological evidence points to the early Hebrews being non-distinct from the Canaanites there is no evidence of a singular Hebrew identity at the time, more or less they are the one and same tribal groups of peoples that fell under different rulers at the time. Even if there was a war it would have likely been a simple resources and land war.

The second is more a culture war. The seleucids at the time were a dying empire under Epiphanies. They had a policy to hellenise the empire. It was more religious and cultural persecution. It was an area that had already been part of the empire for a while and an attempt to impose more centralized authority. The Hebrews main problem through the ages is that they have always been quite an independent minded nation which made them an issue for whoever ruled them as they obviously rebelled quite frequently. It wasn't so much oh your a Hebrew I don't like you, more that they were a rebellious part of empire that needed to be brought under control. As the Romans could attest to. Persecution yes. War no. ( Just so it is clear I do not support the persecution of Hebrews by the seleucids or Romans, but I am all for the Great Empire of Ireland, drinks on me

[LJT]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I know who Dennis Prager is and he started the series for one expliciate reason which is on the banner... Undoing the damage of the University... five minutes at a time. It's a conservative thing.



Dennis Prager is not anti-science he's anti-scientism, as am I. To co-opt your language, no truly logical thought can lead toward a belief that science alone can render truth about the world, reality and the nature of man.

And I'll gladly watch any video you can post that disproves the existance of God in 5 minutes or less.

You know you don't really need to make up a new word such as scientism...scientists and philosophers have already coined 'Positivism' for the stance you are sort of describing, that a certain strand of scientific method is the only authorative way to describe the human experience, hence there are many in academia who are 'anti-positivist'. The fields of history, sociology etc have insights into the way things are and have been as well. It's a slightly more nuanced position than the silly term scientism though.