Atheism is Evil - Page 24 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15158818
MrWonderful wrote:It is yours, this obsession with starting with God and then denying Him, religiously.

If we are to believe in a God, which God and which religion should we believe in? Why? How many Gods are there, and where is the proof for this number? Let me guess, the God/religion you happen to believe in?

99.9% of people who believe in religion believe in the religion they were indoctrinated into believing in as children. Brainwashing is an effective tool of mind-control.

Because there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, for example, let alone understanding their implications, and because specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in any of the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things he himself neither knows nor understands. – The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day, page 262

Explain how quantum physics shows that God(s) exists.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158820
Unthinking Majority wrote:If we are to believe in a God, which God and which religion should we believe in? Why? How many Gods are there, and where is the proof for this number? Let me guess, the God/religion you happen to believe in?

99.9% of people who believe in religion believe in the religion they were indoctrinated into believing in as children. Brainwashing is an effective tool of mind-control.


I would suggest just asking them to make the case for your religion.

Just as how there are clear reasons as to why one form of political thought may be supreme, there are also clear reasons why one religion (and one particular sect of that religion) is supreme.

It's not hard to believe that many political ideas are wrong, and that one is right, it should not be difficult to buy the line that one particular religion is rightp if they are willing to put forward the arguments.

Explain how quantum physics shows that God(s) exists.


I am assuming that they are referring to this:



This is a pretty concise summary of the argument but it is a 15+ minute video.

Spoiler alert: it doesn't definitively prove the existence of God, but it raises a pretty zany possibility that is hard to account for and seems quite unexplainable.
By snapdragon
#15158888
I’m not going to make a case for it. I suppose I’m agnostic, because nobody has proof there is no god, any more than they have proof there is.
I have long come to the conclusion that all religions are constructs invented by men and run by men for the benefit of men.
Possibly the C of E is attempting to move on a bit.
Still, years ago when I was a struggling single mum, the local vicar and his wife were a great help. His wife ran a non Demi national playgroup for local kids. She was a dear, good woman. Exactly what a Christian ought to be, but too often isn’t xx
By late
#15158895
Verv wrote:
This is a pretty concise summary of the argument but it is a 15+ minute video.



So, instead of Schrodinger's cat, you have Schrodinger's deity. That got a chuckle out of me.

Einstein didn't want physics to go that way, they ignored him and pressed on.

This doesn't really have anything to do with deities.
By Pants-of-dog
#15158914
Verv wrote:I would suggest just asking them to make the case for your religion.

Just as how there are clear reasons as to why one form of political thought may be supreme, there are also clear reasons why one religion (and one particular sect of that religion) is supreme.

It's not hard to believe that many political ideas are wrong, and that one is right, it should not be difficult to buy the line that one particular religion is right if they are willing to put forward the arguments.


Then perhaps the OP or another religionist can put forward an argument as to why their religion is (morally) better than atheism.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15158981
snapdragon wrote:I’m not going to make a case for it. I suppose I’m agnostic, because nobody has proof there is no god, any more than they have proof there is.
I have long come to the conclusion that all religions are constructs invented by men and run by men for the benefit of men.

"Proof" is quite subjective. Many men have been imprisoned for decades after having been "proven" guilty in courts of law. Many others have been wrongly found innocent.
Statistical evidence is powerful evidence, and is often used as proof, as in DNA analysis.

Now if you can explain the original synthesis of 5,000 to 7,000 human proteins by naturalistic means, please do so. Be sure to include how some non-thinking mechanism "selected" the precise sequence for polypeptides from 1,000 to 33,450 amino acid residues in length, given that these numbers are 1 out of 20 different amino acids to the respective power of 1,000 to 33,450.
Either of these two fractions are indistinguishable from 0 probability, or in other words impossible without a Designer, named in America's founding documents as "Nature's God."

http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15158982
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then perhaps the OP or another religionist can put forward an argument as to why their religion is (morally) better than atheism.


Countless books are in print which do just that. All you atheists can do is continue to endlessly repeat your inane demands. Atheists give less, marry less, have fewer children, have more mental problems, and are less happy. Infamous atheist Madlyn Murray O'Hare said "Someone please love me!"
She and her family spent decades litigating Christians and Christian practices before they were brutally murdered by their atheist partner. Your fellow atheists include Vladimir Lenin, Stalin, and Chairman Mao, all mass murderers. You cannot weasel your way out of that crowd, try as you might.
User avatar
By Verv
#15158986
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Then perhaps the OP or another religionist can put forward an argument as to why their religion is (morally) better than atheism.


I actually could not find the quotation that I wanted (and spent twenty minutes looking)... but it essentially stated that long, protracted arguments with non-believers benefit nobody and instead can arouse anger.

This is somewhat similar, from St. Mark the Ascetic:

"Do not argue with people not under obedience to you when they oppose the truth; otherwise you may arouse their hatred." (In the Philokalia, Vol. I)

I think it is the case that it would be easy to just annoy people and potentially come off as arrogant and detract from the real essence of Christianity.

late wrote:So, instead of Schrodinger's cat, you have Schrodinger's deity. That got a chuckle out of me.

Einstein didn't want physics to go that way, they ignored him and pressed on.

This doesn't really have anything to do with deities.


It actually mostly goes back to Georges Berkeley's idealism -- very old idea that never gained much sway in the world of apologetics, that things must be being observed to exist. It's really quite an abstract thing and not as flashy or fun as the other argumnts, and more of a brain twister. I always thought of it as one of the strangest arguments for God but this quantum mechanics argument backing it up is really surprising to me and changes my perspective. It has made me want to go back and reread Berkeley, actually.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15158992
@MrWonderful, a name that that must indeed be sarcastic. :D

Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, dismisses the question of whether God is needed to be good "because that question does not need to be answered—it needs to be rejected outright," adding, "To suggest that one can't be good without belief in God is not just an opinion ... it is a prejudice. It may even be discrimination."[1]:ix This is in line with the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[7]:401 Others share this view. Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion".[8][a] Atheistic philosopher Julian Baggini stated that "there is nothing to stop atheists believing in morality, a meaning for life, or human goodness. Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief."[16]:3 He also states that "Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_m ... nd%20wrong.


Atheists aren't concerned with proof or non-proof of a "god". The "god question" is one for philosophers and not for scientists. Legal proof is different from scientific proof.

As someone already mentioned, what religion and "god", are you talking about proof for? There is as much evidence for Odin, than for the Christian god.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159011
MrWonderful wrote:Countless books are in print which do just that.


Good! Please let me know when you have read them and learnt the arguments. Thank you.

All you atheists can do is continue to endlessly repeat your inane demands. Atheists give less, marry less, have fewer children, have more mental problems, and are less happy. Infamous atheist Madlyn Murray O'Hare said "Someone please love me!"
She and her family spent decades litigating Christians and Christian practices before they were brutally murdered by their atheist partner. Your fellow atheists include Vladimir Lenin, Stalin, and Chairman Mao, all mass murderers. You cannot weasel your way out of that crowd, try as you might.


I am not an atheist.

———————————

Verv wrote:I actually could not find the quotation that I wanted (and spent twenty minutes looking)... but it essentially stated that long, protracted arguments with non-believers benefit nobody and instead can arouse anger.

This is somewhat similar, from St. Mark the Ascetic:

"Do not argue with people not under obedience to you when they oppose the truth; otherwise you may arouse their hatred." (In the Philokalia, Vol. I)

I think it is the case that it would be easy to just annoy people and potentially come off as arrogant and detract from the real essence of Christianity.


If you do not wish to discuss ethics and religion, perhaps this thread is not for you.

Here in Canada, the greatest human rights abuse in Canada was done with the help of the churches. So, from a historical perspective focused on where I live now, the atheists have far less blood on their hands.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159022
Godstud wrote:Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, dismisses the question of whether God is needed to be good "because that question does not need to be answered—it needs to be rejected outright," adding, "To suggest that one can't be good without belief in God is not just an opinion ... it is a prejudice. It may even be discrimination."[1]


[i]It may even be discrimination,
:lol: .

The idea that God is needed to be good is part of Christian theology; it's the T in TULIP for Calvinists; it's the basis of original sin for Catholics, ancestral sin for Orthodox. Man is fallen, and lives in a fallen world, and our good works are like dirty rags to God (Isaiah 64:6). There is no one righteous, not one (Romans 3:10). ..No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin (Romans 3:20)...

Moreover, what good things we have come from God (Lamentations 3:38).

What good I have comes by the grace of God.

Only by the grace of God was I not born into miserable poverty; if I am tall, it is a gift from God; if I am well-educated, it is also a gift frm God. If I was inclined to study and to achieve, it is because I was given good parents by God. What good things that we achieve make us better than no one, and what charity we do is always too little.

So, we do not regard any Christian as being capable of being morally good or righteous without God, so why would there be an exception for others?

In the context of this theological position, we should understand the statements of Christians that it is impossible to do good without God.

Hopefully our Harvard humanist chaplain knows all of this... But if he does, why is he perpetuating bad understanding of theology that promotes dismissive & incorrect views of Christians?

He's got an agenda -- the promotion of humanism over Christianity.

:ix This is in line with the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[7]:401 Others share this view. Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion".[8][a] Atheistic philosopher Julian Baggini stated that "there is nothing to stop atheists believing in morality, a meaning for life, or human goodness. Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief."[16]:3 He also states that "Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_m ... nd%20wrong.


Atheists aren't concerned with proof or non-proof of a "god". The "god question" is one for philosophers and not for scientists. Legal proof is different from scientific proof.

As someone already mentioned, what religion and "god", are you talking about proof for? There is as much evidence for Odin, than for the Christian god.


Yes, atheists acn develop moral systems, but then they have the burden of proving their moral systems in a materialist universe. Now they have to try to derive an ought from an is. Quite a task.

Of course, atheists can lead moral lives. They are Christ-bearers. They are rational, smart, witty people; they choose to be kind and benevolent; they choose to love their neighbors. They are inclined to do good much of the time. But, because they are humans just like Christians, they can be incredibly self-serving, and their goodness tends to manifest itself to satisfy their own self-image and to build up fame and glory.

They are in some ways morally better than us Christians because we are such hypocrites.

But... again, the problem is that all men are fallen & depraved, and require repentance. Moreover, people without God cannot practice the Christian virtues, for even a fabricated humanist moral system will be materialistic, and thus will never actually honor what God says to be honored and for the reasn that God says it ought to be honored.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
If you do not wish to discuss ethics and religion, perhaps this thread is not for you.

Here in Canada, the greatest human rights abuse in Canada was done with the help of the churches. So, from a historical perspective focused on where I live now, the atheists have far less blood on their hands.


It's a real bummer. But that is the case.

The Church has been complicit in many crimes.

But let us also remember, sometimes they have made good efforts, and have risen above their times. The same can be said of atheists.

I think it was St. Augustine who argued that if the Church succeeded in making men into Saints and avoiding these catastrophes, it'd be proof of Christianity being wrong; the fact that we suck is proof validates our points about man!
By late
#15159040
Verv wrote:
It actually mostly goes back to Georges Berkeley's idealism -- very old idea that never gained much sway in the world of apologetics, that things must be being observed to exist. It's really quite an abstract thing and not as flashy or fun as the other arguments, and more of a brain twister. I always thought of it as one of the strangest arguments for God but this quantum mechanics argument backing it up is really surprising to me and changes my perspective. It has made me want to go back and reread Berkeley, actually.



These days Bishop Berkeley is best known for pissing Sam Johnson off. That's because it's silly, esp. for an atheist like me. Berkeley was basically saying we are a dream a god is having. He would have loved the Matrix.

One modern approach is that we make models of reality. No one asks is a model is true, or anything, you ask if it works well enough for the task at hand.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159050
late wrote:These days Bishop Berkeley is best known for pissing Sam Johnson off. That's because it's silly, esp. for an atheist like me. Berkeley was basically saying we are a dream a god is having. He would have loved the Matrix.

One modern approach is that we make models of reality. No one asks is a model is true, or anything, you ask if it works well enough for the task at hand.


I can really respect this.

I like to think of science as something that does not tell the full story, but tells enough of the story to do amazing things. We do not understand things completely, but we understand them from the outside, and through instruments. The models that we create are adequate, and thruogh them, we do much.

Being pragmatic can contain within it a sort humbleness.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15159055
Verv wrote:it is impossible to do good without God.

The Euthyphro dilemma.

If the good is absolute, and God cannot do evil, why do we need a middleman to tell us what is 'right' or 'wrong'?

If the good is such because God says it is, then morality is arbitrary, and everything is permitted.

* Note this is not an argument for or against God's existence, only his irrelevance.


:)
By Pants-of-dog
#15159080
Verv wrote:It's a real bummer. But that is the case.

The Church has been complicit in many crimes.

But let us also remember, sometimes they have made good efforts, and have risen above their times. The same can be said of atheists.

I think it was St. Augustine who argued that if the Church succeeded in making men into Saints and avoiding these catastrophes, it'd be proof of Christianity being wrong; the fact that we suck is proof validates our points about man!


St. Augustine seems to be wrong.

Anyway, you seem to be saying here that Christians are no more moral than atheists. This contradicts the claim of the OP and many religionists.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15159179
One of the more common arguments repeated b atheists is Darwinian evolution. It gave the patina of *science* to atheism, as Richard Dawkins so blissfully announced.

In response, this:


A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).
User avatar
By Godstud
#15159188
@MrWonderful Your feeble attempt to divert the argument away from morality to science and other things is duly noted. Is this simply to muddy the waters or make a Strawman argument?

Darwin was a Christian who lost his faith later in life. This is irrelevant.

Are you one of those religious people who doesn't like the Theory of Evolution, because of your religion, because you take everything literally? We already had a thread for fundamentalist extremists to make that argument, if you wish to do so.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15159199
Unthinking Majority wrote:You don't need to believe in a God to be moral. You just need a strong sense of right and wrong.



Where do atheists find these "morals" you speak of? Stalin did not display them. Lenin did not.
Chairman Mao did not. Godless socialists the world over destroy all that they touch. Murder and plunder are their metiers and yet atheists speak relentlessly of "morals" they borrow from the Holy Bible. What hypocrisy. What pretension.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 37

@JohnRawls China does display clear nationali[…]

@ingliz Well the goal of invading Afghanistan […]

Biden to restart construction on Trump's border w[…]

I live on the west coast just north of Seattle, W[…]