The Problems With Atheism

[Sledgehead]

Well I’m convinced. Just going to run off now and commit some of this stuff to memory. Thanks for the link Sledgehead.

P.S. Didn’t mean to offend.

Full marks for the quote whitemice.

WRT yourt original comment, don't worry, I wasn't offended. It was more a pastiche of offense a la Bill Hicks. I dole out enough smart-arsed remarks, so I have to reckon on receiving a few, and like I said, yours was on target. That doesn't mean to say I don't stand behind the substance of my retort: I just hammed it up a little.

[scarlets79]

So far, in your dealings with me you have committed the following debating fallacies:

False premise / Begging the question / Circulus in demonstrando

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad populum

Non Sequitur

Argumentum ad hominem

Dicto simpliciter

You really need to stop writing and go learn why this is no way to seek the truth through debate.

First of all I don't accept your analysis for many of these, and am also curious as to where or whom set the so-called standard for "debating fallacies". It all rather depends on what one is debating- again this goes back to the interpretation topic/putting things in context idea/horses for courses that you seem to struggle with. Why don't you tell us which types of argument you DO accept if you don't accept the above types (again I am contesting your analysis but shall refrain for now). And really if I found examples of you using such arguments as described above in this thread then wouldn't this make you a hypocrit (don't worry I won't bother as I am a busy man). You presented a flawed regression exercise yet simultaenously said you didn't require education in statistics. You suggested you required absolute proof yet you freely accept plenty of other ideas/theories without absolute proof. No doubt you'll now accuse me of making ad hominem attacks... yawn.

[Without_a_Paddle]

First of all I don't accept your analysis for many of these, and am also curious as to where or whom set the so-called standard for "debating fallacies". It all rather depends on what one is debating- again this goes back to the interpretation topic/putting things in context idea/horses for courses that you seem to struggle with. Why don't you tell us which types of argument you DO accept if you don't accept the above types (again I am contesting your analysis but shall refrain for now). And really if I found examples of you using such arguments as described above in this thread then wouldn't this make you a hypocrit (don't worry I won't bother as I am a busy man). You presented a flawed regression exercise yet simultaenously said you didn't require education in statistics. You suggested you required absolute proof yet you freely accept plenty of other ideas/theories without absolute proof. No doubt you'll now accuse me of making ad hominem attacks... yawn.

If there are 6 billion people in the World (assuming we are alone in the universe)

then that means that god must devote just a few millionths of a second to each of us every day. That doesn't include allowing him time to yawn or fart BTW.

Also, why did he only send one Jesus? what about the rest of the World? It didn't seem a very efficient system for spreading the gospel in those days... Presumably the World had to wait for him to grow up as well.

The person who impresses me the most in all this is Mary. An embarrassed single mum (to be) with a good sense of imagination...

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

First of all I don't accept your analysis for many of these, and am also curious as to where or whom set the so-called standard for "debating fallacies". It all rather depends on what one is debating- again this goes back to the interpretation topic/putting things in context idea/horses for courses that you seem to struggle with. Why don't you tell us which types of argument you DO accept if you don't accept the above types (again I am contesting your analysis but shall refrain for now). And really if I found examples of you using such arguments as described above in this thread then wouldn't this make you a hypocrit (don't worry I won't bother as I am a busy man). You presented a flawed regression exercise yet simultaenously said you didn't require education in statistics. You suggested you required absolute proof yet you freely accept plenty of other ideas/theories without absolute proof. No doubt you'll now accuse me of making ad hominem attacks... yawn.

I think this is probably what he's getting at.

[Sledgehead]

First of all I don't accept your analysis for many of these, and am also curious as to where or whom set the so-called standard for "debating fallacies".

The fact that you question the tenets of logical debate tells me all I need to know.

It all rather depends on what one is debating- .

In what way could this ever be true? How can the rules of logic bend for the topic?

again this goes back to the interpretation topic/putting things in context idea/horses for courses that you seem to struggle with

That's quite funny. I have already told you I have no problem understanding your "horse" idea. In suggesting I am incapable of grasping such a concept you are once again trying to undermine my credibility. Whether I have an IQ of 9000 or am a dribbling idiot has no bearing of the validity of atheism, agnosticism. That is why such an ad hominem attack is a debating fallacy.

Why don't you tell us which types of argument you DO accept if you don't accept the above types

I have already told you the basis for my consideration of new theoris and hypotheses.

(again I am contesting your analysis but shall refrain for now).

It is not my analysis. It is reason you are contesting. What do you think that makes you?

And really if I found examples of you using such arguments as described above in this thread then wouldn't this make you a hypocrit (don't worry I won't bother as I am a busy man).

So what? Calling me names will not influence the validity of atheism / agnosticism. And two wrongs don't make a right. You are committing two debating fallacies here :

Tu quoque ("you too")

Ad hominem (argument directed at the person)

You presented a flawed regression exercise yet simultaenously said you didn't require education in statistics.

I presented the statistics available to me, which had certin caveats attached. You may call these flaws. All statistics suffer from such caveats. that does not mean they are useless in forming conclusions.

You suggested you required absolute proof

No, I did not. I have already told you the criteria that allow me to consider theories and hypotheses.

yet you freely accept plenty of other ideas/theories without absolute proof. No doubt you'll now accuse me of making ad hominem attacks... yawn.

No, I have not accepted any ideas in presenting the statistics, let alone "plenty" of them.

What you fail to appreciate is the conclusions I have drawn from the presented statistics. Rather than ever claiming the statistics proved an atheist society was a better society, I presented them to refute your claim that a theist society was a better society. The statistics suggest this is not the case. I am not saying they prove anything. I have not accepted the idea that atheists make better societies, and I still do not accept theists make better societies.

Why should I : you have offered no evidence, statistical or otehrwise.

I would also remind you that the validity of atheism / agnosticism does not turn on my acceptance or rejection of statistics.

[scarlets79]

sledge, so you don't know where you stand then?

if you are undecided at this point in time, fine.

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

Now he's either telling the truth, or he's a lunatic and/or a liar... I believe he's telling the truth.

[Sledgehead]

sledge, so you don't know where you stand then?

if you are undecided at this point in time, fine.

Fine in what respect?

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

Now he's either telling the truth, or he's a lunatic and/or a liar... I believe he's telling the truth.

Amazing. You totally discount the obvious 3rd option : his character, words and deeds are largely mythical / allegorical.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

Fine in what respect?

Amazing. You totally discount the obvious 3rd option : his character, words and deeds are largely mythical / allegorical.

There's another possibility that occurs as well, namely that the christian church has forgotten/distorted the original message over time so that the it has become all but lost.

[RichB]

What fun. Can I play? Mind If I go back to the start?

Please answer the following

1. How much of all the knowledge of this world would you say human beings know? Give a %.

2. How much of all the knowledge of this universe would you say human beings know? Give a %.

3. What probability "p" would you give for Christianity to be true... and would your probability, p, be greater than zero or equal to zero?

1. Given the standard philosophical definition of knowledge to be a justified, true belief, then as we currently hold true that only humans have belief then that's 100%

2. Unless you are suggesting that aliens exist, then with reference to point 1 above then that also is 100%

3. I would refer you to many interpretations of the Ontological argument, which have been demostrably flawed since their inception.

[scarlets79]

so sledge etc. who made up the lies? the gospel writers? the church? are you now not saying Jesus is the liar but rather those that reported on his life and teachings and the subsequent church? if you are indeed making such accusations where is your supporting evidence?

[scarlets79]

What fun. Can I play? Mind If I go back to the start?

1. Given the standard philosophical definition of knowledge to be a justified, true belief, then as we currently hold true that only humans have belief then that's 100%

2. Unless you are suggesting that aliens exist, then with reference to point 1 above then that also is 100%

3. I would refer you to many interpretations of the Ontological argument, which have been demostrably flawed since their inception.

100%? lol

why do we need science for then, if we know everything already

[Wario]

100%? lol

why do we need science for then, if we know everything already

Woo! This thread is better than drugs!

How's about then, guys'n'gals, how's about we start off Rs backwards, and put a %age on exactly what we don't know?

Then we could divvy it up between known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, like whoever Rummy was misquoting.

If we don't know it, then it ain't knowledge. It's (woo!) mystery.

How much mystery is there in the universe. Nearest answer in tonnes wins a luverly plastic troll (but most of the hair has fallen out for some reason. Moths?)

[RichB]

100%? lol

why do we need science for then, if we know everything already

You miss the point. I have answered the question you asked - perhaps not the question you meant to ask.

1. How much of all the knowledge of this world would you say human beings know? Give a %.

a. Knowledge requires belief, for things to be known (ie to be knowledge) they must by very definition be known _by_ something/someone.

b. Humans are the only things on earth that can be considered to know things (under current sociopolitical thought).

c Therefore all knowledge is known by humans.

Its a fairly straightforward syllogistic argument, I am suprised you have difficulty following it.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

so sledge etc. who made up the lies? the gospel writers? the church? are you now not saying Jesus is the liar but rather those that reported on his life and teachings and the subsequent church? if you are indeed making such accusations where is your supporting evidence?

Let's start here, here and here. shall we?

Notice I did not use the word "lies" or "liar". Yet again you are putting words in other people's mouths. Have a read of a few of the texts there and see what you think. If you're not sure where to start, the gospel of Thomas is probably as good a place as any.

Edit:

Forgot one

[Sledgehead]

so sledge etc. who made up the lies? the gospel writers? the church?

Whilst others may be aware of conspiraces and vested interested parties who would favour literary invention, I am not sufficiently interested to determine whether the contents of the bible are a result of author madness, manipulativeness of maliciousness. And whether they be "lies", delusion, propaganda or just cracking fiction is not the issue here.

are you now not saying

Again you put words in my mouth, in that your use of "now" suggests I am changing my stance. This is simply not the case.

are you now not saying Jesus is the liar but rather those that reported on his life and teachings and the subsequent church?

Once again, you use the word "liar" implying intention to deceive. For the sake of this debate intention is not the issue, so please desist from using such loaded and emotive language.

if you are indeed making such accusations where is your supporting evidence?

Same as I have stated over the course of many posts : scriptural inconsistency. Since it is claimed that the bible be the word of god, it must be perfect and consistent and not open to interpretation. The fact that it is not, means it cannot be the word of god. Seeing as this is central to scripture, it undermines the entire religious significance of the whole text.

[scarlets79]

sledge- either Jesus was the son or God or he was not

either he told the truth or he lied

OR the gospel writers reported the truth or they wrote down lies

it really is this simple

and sledge, on the issue of interpretation, there's always going to be human beings interpreting things in different way that's just life, but on the essentials of the faith there is agreement

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

sledge- either Jesus was the son or God or he was not

either he told the truth or he lied

OR the gospel writers reported the truth or they wrote down lies

it really is this simple

and sledge, on the issue of interpretation, there's always going to be human beings interpreting things in different way that's just life, but on the essentials of the faith there is agreement

Well, yes and no. Have you read the gospel of Judas?

[Sledgehead]

From christian ....

Jesus ... is something else- someone exhibiting this behaviour is not just one of us, not a conman. Might he be the son of God? I think so.

... to agnostic ....

sledge- either Jesus was the son or God or he was not

either he told the truth or he lied

OR the gospel writers reported the truth or they wrote down lies

it really is this simple

....in 10 days!

Oh yeah : WHO'S THE DADDY! ( )

[scarlets79]

sledge, you're now misinterpreting my posts

[fiddlethefigures]

Jesus Christ the son of god showing the world of his geocentric mentality

Matthew 24:29

“Immediately after the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=mat&am...24&verse=29

Surely the sun of god would know how the solar system works his dad created it.

His lack of understanding about the universe is shown in all its glory because he thinks the stars are above his head instead of the reality of them being billions of light years away.

THE GEOCENTRIC HIERARCHY

History reveals that around 200 B.C, less than five decades after Aristarchus' exquisite formulation of the celestial system, the geocentric concept of the universe, despite its inherent theoretical difficulty, became more and more adopted by the power structure of the Western world -- by the master neocheaters operating through their governments. The geocentric concept achieved prominence over the heliocentric system not because it was superior theoretically but because it was more expedient politically. It was not a scientific decision but a political strategy that made the geocentric system the "official" picture of the universe

http://www.neo-tech.com/zero/part3.html

[scarlets79]

Surely the sun of god would know how the solar system works his dad created it.

His lack of understanding about the universe is shown in all its glory because he thinks the stars are above his head instead of the reality of them being billions of light years away.

?

are the stars above your head?

yes/no

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

?

are the stars above your head?

yes/no

Half of them are below it as well unless you want to argue about the earth being flat.

[fiddlethefigures]

If i look in the night sky and didnt know any different then i would say they were a few thousand miles up, but due to technology i know they are billions of miles away and i am seeing them in the past because of the speed of light is so fast it still takes the light from them stars years to reach my eye.

Jesus didnt have access to the hubble telescope hence his biblical error. But if you were the son of god why would you make such a glaring error.

All bible preachers get your p45

[scarlets79]

Jesus Christ the son of god showing the world of his geocentric mentality

Matthew 24:29

“Immediately after the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

...

Surely the sun of god would know how the solar system works his dad created it.

His lack of understanding about the universe is shown in all its glory because he thinks the stars are above his head instead of the reality of them being billions of light years away.

fiddle, Jesus did not say the stars were only "above his head" as you suggest.

[scarlets79]

If i look in the night sky and didnt know any different then i would say they were a few thousand miles up, but due to technology i know they are billions of miles away and i am seeing them in the past because of the speed of light is so fast it still takes the light from them stars years to reach my eye.

Jesus didnt have access to the hubble telescope hence his biblical error. But if you were the son of god why would you make such a glaring error.

All bible preachers get your p45

what error? what are you talking about? did Jesus say they were only a few thousand miles up? this "error" is all in your imagination I'm afraid