Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is the mendacious Theistic accusation of Atheistic belief a facile attempt to validate their own irrational belief?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 3068 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 18:09:59 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Eruditely and eloquently put if I may say so.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 18:13:10 BDT
O.Binladen says:
This always occurs to me when Atheists lack of belief is cited as a belief itself, do theists have two sets of belief? One in their chosen deity, and another to not believe in all the others?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 18:15:04 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 19:50:27 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Omniscience, Omnipotence, both of these contain innate paradoxes that make the claims irrational. As does the claim of benevolence in a being with limitless power that creates a world where there is ubiquitous suffering, and does nothing to stop it.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 18:16:36 BDT
O.Binladen says:
If this argument is taken to it's logical conclusion then one must claim to be agnostic about everything for which there is no evidence, unicorns, mermaids, et all.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 18:22:43 BDT
Henry James says:
OB: Eruditely and eloquently put if I may say so.

Henry: I'll interpret that compliment as being aimed at me.
(I need cheering up today)

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:02:07 BDT
Archibald F says:
Hi Peter

So good to read an intelligent and well considered explanation of your position. Makes complete sense to me, though my conclusions are different to yours.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:13:18 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Your assertion is correct sir.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:19:25 BDT
Archibald F says:
"My point is that God isn't a scientific theory but it is the sort of idea that could be if it was good enough."
Intelligent Design is effectively a scientific theory of a creator. (Why the need to add the disparaging sneer of 'if it was good enough'?)

"... failing to acknowledge how tentatively scientific claims are handled when comparing them to religious claims."
Well there are similarities, and there are differences. I'd suggest a big difference in your instance is that you are quite happy to consider one, and not the other.

"God is a hypothesis amendable to evidence. It's also amenable to logic. God fails on both counts."
Clearly in your opinion, yes. And clearly in mine, no.

"Comfort yourself with this delusion" - Thank you.

"It's personal, creator gods effected by logic. Being a Christian, your's falls well and truly into the logically refuted category."
By you, but not by me. Maybe your power of logic is greater than that of all Christians? And then, maybe it isn't?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:34:28 BDT
O.Binladen says:
ID is not a scientific theory, there's zero evidence to support it. Mainstream science has rejected it utterly as pseudo scientific nonsense. So it's a very bad example to use.

Drew is correctly pointing out the innate logical contradictions in some of the claims made for a Christian god. I'm sure there are ontological arguments that can be claimed as logical, but these don't change those contradictions, again see my earlier post about omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:38:41 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"Intelligent Design is effectively a scientific theory of a creator."

Er.. no it isn't.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:43:39 BDT
Archibald F says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 19:47:13 BDT
Archibald F says:
"Now - do you believe in Odin?" No.

"If not why not?" Because I have no reason to.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 20:03:38 BDT
Archibald F says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 20:11:38 BDT
Bellatori says:
"Intelligent Design is effectively a scientific theory of a creator." Indeed it is. One that has more holes than a colander and is about as reputable as 'Cold Fusion' but ... well it is a theory, let's stop there...

"By you, but not by me. Maybe your power of logic is greater than that of all Christians? And then, maybe it isn't? " In 2000 years not one theologian has come up with a decent argument to get around the problems of a religion that posits an omniscient, omnipotent and benificent God and a few issues such as free will & the existence of evil. Nor, come to that, have theologians turned up one jot of evidence for the existencem of God but then as RAH said...

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it." and
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history. [Robert Heinlein]"

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 20:15:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 20:32:08 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Intelligent Design is effectively a scientific theory of a creator. (Why the need to add the disparaging sneer of 'if it was good enough'?)"
It's not a theory, it's at a stretch a hypothesis. This is what I mean by misunderstanding and misappling terms to try and pretend belief in God is akin to any other form of knowledge that is not absolute.

"Well there are similarities, and there are differences."
The similarities are tenuous. It's the differences that make attempts to analogise them fail.

"I'd suggest a big difference in your instance is that you are quite happy to consider one, and not the other."
That's just BS you tell yourself to comfort youself. I've considered them both one just hasn't got enough to it to keep up, it's that simple.

"Clearly in your opinion, yes. And clearly in mine, no."
Well I'll give you the reasoning behind my opinion, can probably antecipate your arguments and show where I've discussed them already (putting to bed your ideas I've just not thought about ID) and then I'll show that my reasoning will out do that of yours. Appeals to opinions like this are just the same dishonest equivocation you were trying on before, the whole thing is a charade.

>>> Being a Christian, your's falls well and truly into the logically refuted category.
"By you, but not by me."
Well no, not by you! You do jumped to conclusions not logic.

"Maybe your power of logic is greater than that of all Christians? And then, maybe it isn't?"
Being able to pick holes in a 2,000 year old story that is having to constantly chnage tact is nothing to shout about. There's nothing special about Christian theology that plugs holes you see in other god claims.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 20:21:10 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Hi Drew, you really have a loyal following on here don't you! If atheism was accepted as a religion, I think they'd all be voting for you as President, or High Priest maybe?"
I'm better documented than the bloke you've got so it's a decent start!

"Yes, clearly, but you are living in the context of a nation where Christianity, and more recently, other Abrahamic faiths, have been dominant."
Irrelevant. The argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

"I think you mean that the idea of a god is less ridiculous to you than any actual religions you have come across, which is not surprising."
No, I mean the specific god you luckily get to efer to as God is a mess of logical contradictions and dishonest attempts to place it in the real world but excuse it from the consequences. Other gods are available.

"Goodness, you are adopting my terminology?"
Not everything you say is wrong. Your terminology is workable, your understanding of its application is wrong.

"I think as high priest, this could be the topic of your first sermon!!"
It not the choir I'll be addressing.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 21:39:28 BDT
Archibald F says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 21:44:46 BDT
Archibald F says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 22:38:35 BDT
O.Binladen says:
No, I've referred to these paradoxical claims Christians make for their god more than once in this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 22:41:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 23:13:58 BDT
O.Binladen says:
What is the reason that you require in order to believe in Odin that you don't need in order to believe in Yahweh?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 22:47:39 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"From Wiki - "Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science." Hence why I said 'effectively', since any theories about god cannot be deemed science using this definition precludes it."

You do realise that ID is basically just Christian creationism repackaged for the gullible?

It not 'effectively' scientific, nor a scientific theory, it is explicitly anti-science. It has no evidence, no methodology, no way of being falsified, it offers no explanatory content, no predictions. Nothing.

Which is why its advocates spend so much time and money attempting to force this garbage into classrooms.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 23:10:58 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that after continuously telling us science has nothing to say about god, because their god can in no way be empirically tested or defined by the scientific method, they then want to use "science" to prove it exists, talk about having your cake and eating it.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 23:19:24 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Christian doublethink at its finest. (it rots the brain)

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 23:47:10 BDT
Henry James says:
It is often described as "mental gymnastics."

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 23:51:49 BDT
O.Binladen says:
...because it's mental?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

ARRAY(0xaf6e0d68)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  67
Total posts:  3068
Initial post:  19 May 2013
Latest post:  15 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions