Happy Atheist Forum

The moderating staff has chosen to split this thread from the original, "Terrifying Thought of no Afterlife", as it has gone on and off topic and seems to veer off permanently here. Feel free to continue the general religion talk that is going on here, but for the original thread go here, where DJAkuna had the last on topic post:
viewtopic.php?p=94307#p94307 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=94307#p94307)

Quote from: "Cycel"As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

GREEK ORTHODOX: "I hold onto my faith because I was raised in it, it's how I think - and how I think isn't causing me any problems so why should I change?  Plus the wise elders of my community live by this faith, and find meaning and happiness in it.  I too live by it, and find meaning and happiness in it.  My people for many centuries have lived by this faith, and have found meaning and happiness in it."

MUSLIM: "I hold onto my faith because I was raised in it, it's how I think - and how I think isn't causing me any problems so why should I change?  Plus the wise elders of my community live by this faith, and find meaning and happiness in it.  I too live by it, and find meaning and happiness in it.  My people for many centuries have lived by this faith, and have found meaning and happiness in it."

ATHEIST: "Uh, guys, either one of you is right and the other wrong, or both of you are wrong, or both of you are right.  Which do you think is most likely?"

GREEK ORTHODOX: "I'm right.  He's wrong."

MUSLIM: "Go to hell.  I'm right.  You're wrong."

GREEK ORTHODOX: "No, you go to hell.  You will, by the way."

MUSLIM: "Infidel!"

ATHEIST: "Bye, guys.  I smell Crusaders and jumbo jets in your future.  I'll keep my distance."

Why Christianity?  Because the Trinity and the Incarnation is central to our faith, which are essential for our salvation. What does our salvation entail? Living life as God Incarnate lived, dying with Him as He died, rising up with Him, and not merely eternal life, but growth and love being engrafted within the Triune relationship of the Godhead, from which my prayers have given. God became incarnate so that I too may become a "son of God" by the life of the Holy Spirit living in me, putting me in direct relationship with the Father. It is a profound and significant part of our theology. It's blasphemy with the Muslims, unfulfilled with the Jews, incorrect with the Hindus, too much selflessness with the Buddhists, and contradictory to many other faiths.

Quote from: "Cycel"If there was one truth writ large across the heavens would it not permit all seekers of religious truth to arrive at a more unified account?  The enormous diversity of belief tells me the many interpretations are arrived at very subjectively.

No, that is what you want to see, so you 'see' it?

The history of science doesn't present a unified account, yet you seem to hold that they all have been looking at the same objective reality.

That a 1000 people each have a different guess on how many jelly beans are in the jar doesn't change the fact that there is only one correct answer in that contest.

QuoteThey are based on personal reflection, introspection, and interpretation of a bewildering variety of religious texts.  One believer's truths are another's false beliefs.

So you keep on asserting, and have yet to commence the proving.

And you are very fond of dumping all "believers" into a very broad trough. Like saying because Ptolomy and Copernicus disagree, all astromony is based on personal reflection, introspection, and interpretation of a bewildering variety of observations of the same sky.

QuoteIt seems believers can't agree.

Nor should we, given your broad definition. What concord to Christ with Belial?

QuoteIt should be no surprise that an atheist would shrug and declare them all false.

Of course. It's just a cop out that absolves them in their own minds. Atheism is the opiate of the dissolute.

QuoteI don't claim to know much about the Greek Orthodox Church, and I don't understand much better what your laughter signifies.  Do you mean to imply that there are numerous accounts explaining daily life in Heaven or do you laugh because the question highlights my ignorance for a different reason?

I'm laughing because you come to this thread to tell me off, without a clue it seems about knowing about what the Orthodox believe. If this was just a general forum, I wouldn't laugh so heartily. But to come where your ignorance on vital points is going to be seen right away...that takes hubris.

Quote from: "Cycel"Only because you disconnected the sentence from the following one that it belongs with.  I am not implying that I buy into the Jehovah's Witness theology.  I don't.  I am simply amused by the claim that my great-grandparents are considered, by the Witness, to hold this special honour.

QuoteI have family members who are counted among the 144,000. My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith. So what they think matters to me. My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

I do believe that I bold faced it in the original response.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

I thought so.

QuoteThere isn't any belief system that can teach me anything about God, in my view,

Yes, and per the principles of invincible ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible ... ce_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy)
You set out to "prove" that.

Quotebut each can inform me what they think their faith's theology reveals.  As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

Let me ask you this: do you perceive any one world-view as closer to the truth than some other view? For instance, if world-view A says "humanity evolved from non-human primates" and world-view B says "humanity did not evolve from non-human primates", would you state that neither world-view is closer to the truth than the other?

QuoteIt interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

I know a thing or two about Islam, and, having a doctorate in Systematic Theology at the U of E, a thing or two about Christians, and no, they cannot. Wrong again.

QuoteGREEK ORTHODOX: "I hold onto my faith because I was raised in it, it's how I think - and how I think isn't causing me any problems so why should I change?  Plus the wise elders of my community live by this faith, and find meaning and happiness in it.  I too live by it, and find meaning and happiness in it.  My people for many centuries have lived by this faith, and have found meaning and happiness in it."

MUSLIM: "I hold onto my faith because I was raised in it, it's how I think - and how I think isn't causing me any problems so why should I change?  Plus the wise elders of my community live by this faith, and find meaning and happiness in it.  I too live by it, and find meaning and happiness in it.  My people for many centuries have lived by this faith, and have found meaning and happiness in it."

ATHEIST: "Uh, guys, either one of you is right and the other wrong, or both of you are wrong, or both of you are right.  Which do you think is most likely?"

No, both cannot be right.

QuoteGREEK ORTHODOX: "I'm right.  He's wrong."

MUSLIM: "Go to hell.  I'm right.  You're wrong."

GREEK ORTHODOX: "No, you go to hell.  You will, by the way."

MUSLIM: "Infidel!"

ATHEIST: "Bye, guys.  I smell Crusaders and jumbo jets in your future.  I'll keep my distance."

Do you use the same card-board characters and strawmen in your novels?

I know many people, myself included, were not rasied in Orthodoxy-in fact, we have some members who were raised in Islam-and hence have changed, some of us more, some of us less, your little script seems a little out of place.

By the way, the atheists Stalin and Hitler killed more than even the Crusaders could dream of.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteIt interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

I know a thing or two about Islam, and, having a doctorate in Systematic Theology at the U of E, a thing or two about Christians, and no, they cannot. Wrong again.

OK.  I will ask you to state why you hold onto faith in words no Muslim could echo.  Not what your faith is, but why you hold onto it.  Thus, "a personal relationship with Jesus," if you offered that, would be echoed by, "a personal relationship with Allah," which many Muslims experience five times a day, on their knees.

Quote from: "Achronos"By the way, the atheists Stalin and Hitler killed more than even the Crusaders could dream of.

Wow. I have been taking you seriously right up until this point. Your PhD apparently didn't cover Hitler. He remained a believer in god right to his death. Although there is much inconsistency with regard to what his true beliefs were (mainly because Hitler, himself gave conflicting statements throughout his life), he remained a believer in god and the supernatural. That excludes him from the atheist label.

Regardless, here's the thing. It wouldn't matter if Hitler (or Stalin) professed any belief whatsoever. They were insane, and their atrocities were created and carried out because of their insanity, not any belief system of religion. So even if Hitler went to mass every week, and took communion, I would never say something so atrociously silly as, "He committed all those crimes because he was catholic."

You just lost a what credibility you had in my mind with this arrogant and inaccurate statement.

Quote from: "Achronos"By the way, the atheists Stalin and Hitler killed more than even the Crusaders could dream of.

[youtube:1vhzwkay]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY[/youtube:1vhzwkay]

If Hitler was an atheist then I'm a fairy princess.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"OK.  I will ask you to state why you hold onto faith in words no Muslim could echo.  Not what your faith is, but why you hold onto it.  Thus, "a personal relationship with Jesus," if you offered that, would be echoed by, "a personal relationship with Allah," which many Muslims experience five times a day, on their knees.

LOL. Ignorance on parade. No, they don't. At least the majority: there are Sufis would speak of "a personal relationship with Allah", but the shar'i minded majority of Muslims, in particular the Sunni majority, do not.  Their goal is submission to Allah, a being of absolute will, not having a relatiohship with Him.  Except slave.

Quote from: "McQ"Wow. I have been taking you seriously right up until this point.

Why did my BS meter just go off?

QuoteYour PhD apparently didn't cover Hitler.

Hitler didn't teach systematic theology.

QuoteHe remained a believer in god right to his death.

Yes, I have seen the desparate attempts of atheists to prove this and no I don't believe they have succeeded.

QuoteAlthough there is much inconsistency with regard to what his true beliefs were (mainly because Hitler, himself gave conflicting statements throughout his life), he remained a believer in god and the supernatural. That excludes him from the atheist label.

Orthodox atheism. What a concept. Are you speaking ex cathedra on that matter of faith?

One might consider believers in dialectical materialism, progressivism, Enlightenment, the Human Spirit, whatever, a believer in the Supernatural. Indeed by your broad definition you must. So he might consider Hitler to have been a believer in god, but not in God.

QuoteRegardless, here's the thing. It wouldn't matter if Hitler (or Stalin) professed any belief whatsoever. They were insane,

I didn't know anything about your MD in Psychology/Psychiatry.

Quoteand their atrocities were created and carried out because of their insanity, not any belief system of religion. So even if Hitler went to mass every week, and took communion, I would never say something so atrociously silly as, "He committed all those crimes because he was catholic."

One can, and many have, make that argument. That there is no truth to it-the Vatican doesn't teach racialism-is how it fails.

QuoteYou just lost a what credibility you had in my mind with this arrogant and inaccurate statement.

LOL. So I've lost credibility with the atheist. What will I do. :|

Quote from: "Achronos"LOL. Ignorance on parade. No, they don't. At least the majority: there are Sufis would speak of "a personal relationship with Allah", but the shar'i minded majority of Muslims, in particular the Sunni majority, do not.  Their goal is submission to Allah, a being of absolute will, not having a relatiohship with Him.  Except slave.

Submission is the relationship.  Allah is Master, Muslim is slave.  That's the relationship.  It's personal, meaningful, inspirational, humbling, ennobling, and fulfilling for those who practice it.  

Here's a link: People's Relationship with Allah - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658516938&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout

Here's another: Defining Your Relationship with Allah - http://www.helium.com/items/1534543-defining-ones-relationship-with-allah

It is self-evident to all disinterested parties that Islam and Greek Orthodoxy and Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism and Judaism and any others all have precisely the same right to claim their path is the true one.  All base their claims on the life experiences of the individual and the collective, alive today and extending backwards into the past for centuries.  All claim their paths are personal, meaningful, inspirational, humbling, ennobling, and fulfilling for those who practice them.  All claim traditions that have stood the test of time.  All claim lineages of wise and devout leaders who speak in the name of God by the grace of God.

Achronos, I'm curious, what part of "Gott Mit Uns" sounds atheist you? Why don't you try backing your assertions? Please, enlighten us stupid atheists....

QuoteLOL. Ignorance on parade. No, they don't. At least the majority: there are Sufis would speak of "a personal relationship with Allah", but the shar'i minded majority of Muslims, in particular the Sunni majority, do not. Their goal is submission to Allah, a being of absolute will, not having a relatiohship with Him. Except slave.

Muslims are told to pray five times a day to keep a good relationship with Allah. What did you say you majored in? From where?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "McQ"Wow. I have been taking you seriously right up until this point.

Why did my BS meter just go off?

I really don't know, considering I have been the one atheist on the forum defending you, telling people to stop the name calling, to treat you in a civil manner. I've been taking your side and was impressed with much of what you said up until now, and I've been saying so. So your sarcasm doesn't fly with me. It's childish and uncalled for.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteYour PhD apparently didn't cover Hitler.

Hitler didn't teach systematic theology.

So what? He murdered millions, and historians agree on many aspects of his life and thought processes. What's your point?

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteHe remained a believer in god right to his death.

Yes, I have seen the desparate attempts of atheists to prove this and no I don't believe they have succeeded.

Show me the desperate attempts by atheists. Then I'll show you what legitimate historians say, what the people closest to Hitler said, and we'll see who's got the legitimate statement.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteAlthough there is much inconsistency with regard to what his true beliefs were (mainly because Hitler, himself gave conflicting statements throughout his life), he remained a believer in god and the supernatural. That excludes him from the atheist label.

Orthodox atheism. What a concept. Are you speaking ex cathedra on that matter of faith?

One might consider believers in dialectical materialism, progressivism, Enlightenment, the Human Spirit, whatever, a believer in the Supernatural. Indeed by your broad definition you must. So he might consider Hitler to have been a believer in god, but not in God.

It's simple. Anyone who believes in a god is not an atheist. Or even better, one who believes in many gods, but not some, would be an atheist of some gods if it makes you feel better. For all your continued smart-assed, uncalled for remarks, you don't win by now trying to redefine atheism. A belief in the god of the bible, as Hitler had, disqualifies him as an atheist.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteRegardless, here's the thing. It wouldn't matter if Hitler (or Stalin) professed any belief whatsoever. They were insane,

I didn't know anything about your MD in Psychology/Psychiatry.

There's a lot you don't know about me. But the fact is that one needs no degree to repeat what is already widely known about Hitler. I don't need to be his personal doctor to be able to say that he was insane.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quoteand their atrocities were created and carried out because of their insanity, not any belief system of religion. So even if Hitler went to mass every week, and took communion, I would never say something so atrociously silly as, "He committed all those crimes because he was catholic."

One can, and many have, make that argument. That there is no truth to it-the Vatican doesn't teach racialism-is how it fails.

Ummm...I just said that. What's your point?

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteYou just lost a what credibility you had in my mind with this arrogant and inaccurate statement.

LOL. So I've lost credibility with the atheist. What will I do. :|

If I were you, I'd try to regain it. This atheist has the ability to kick your snarky ass right out of here. This atheist doesn't appreciate that you failed to appreciate the extra mile I went on your behalf, only for you to come off like a punk.
So I suggest an attitude change right quick. That fact is what you claimed is patently false and you should be ashamed to even trot it out and spout it like it's the truth when it has been discredited.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Submission is the relationship.  Allah is Master, Muslim is slave.

You're forgetting about free-will which is the hallmark of a genuine relationship.  In Islam, if you leave - you die.  Does that sound like a relationship?  If so, then you might wish to read up on co-dependency.

QuoteIt is self-evident to all disinterested parties...

Perhaps when you become genuinely interested and not just the cut-and-paste variety of interest, you'll have a better grasp of these things.  I won't hold my breath, though.

You know chanting His name over and over whilst spinning ain't a relationship though. Debatable? Only if you can call a school writing the name of the latest dreamboat on her notebook, over and over, true and lasting love.

Quote from: "Sophus"Achronos, I'm curious, what part of "Gott Mit Uns" sounds atheist you? Why don't you try backing your assertions? Please, enlighten us stupid atheists....

Because its a slogan. In the U.S., atheists use money that states, "In God we Trust". It is no indicator whatsoever of any religious belief.

The phrase "Gott mit uns" "God with us" was on the belt buckles long before Hitler, who would have worn one like this
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fvance%2Fwwi-buckle.jpg&hash=45c5d442cbb209a6fffaebedb5d346a07e076553)
in WWI. It had been the slogan of the German military since at least 1876 (I've seen collections of military etc. from then with the phrase all over)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)

If I am in the mood and have the time to kill, I might actually go through the silly skit. But off the top of my head:

Hitler can claim to be a "catholic."  I worked with a couple who were "catholic" and sent their children to "catholic" school for a better education and morals, but were very put out that they had to take the "supernatural" stuff too like first confession: they were agnostic/atheist in belief, but "catholic."  I've known atheists who insisted on having their children baptized for "cultural reasons" though they were "atheist" catholics, and I've known Jews in mixed marriages who were atheist but insisted on raising their children "Jewish" (oddly enough, two of them the gentile was devote Christians, the spent his childhood on mission in the Pacific atolls).  Like you said Hitler "gave conflicting statements throughout his life," but he was far from alone in that.

No time for more.

QuoteWhat did you say you majored in? From where?

Systematic Theology, University of Edinburgh. Sophus, you would benefit from a good, basic World Religions 101 class.

Quote from: "Achronos"If I am in the mood and have the time to kill, I might actually go through the silly skit. But off the top of my head:

Hitler can claim to be a "catholic."  I worked with a couple who were "catholic" and sent their children to "catholic" school for a better education and morals, but were very put out that they had to take the "supernatural" stuff too like first confession: they were agnostic/atheist in belief, but "catholic."  I've known atheists who insisted on having their children baptized for "cultural reasons" though they were "atheist" catholics, and I've known Jews in mixed marriages who were atheist but insisted on raising their children "Jewish" (oddly enough, two of them the gentile was devote Christians, the spent his childhood on mission in the Pacific atolls).  Like you said Hitler "gave conflicting statements throughout his life," but he was far from alone in that.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is not the slightest bit persuasive. Besides, Hitler did not simply claim to be Catholic, he referenced belief in God and the Divine quote often (eg. "by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” [Mein Kampf]). This is especially evident throughout Mein Kampf, and after he survived so many attacks on his life he came to believe he was divinely protected. You claimed Hitler was an atheist. I am asking you to prove it. Arguing a case is a little more useful (and difficult) than throwing out meaningless arrogant insults and "LOLs".

And yes, of course the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" dates far back, but Hitler wouldn't have put it on the Nazi Party's belt buckles if he were an atheist.

QuoteSophus, you would benefit from a good, basic World Religions 101 class.

I've had more than just that. Thanks.

EDIT: For good measure, here's a list of some of Hitler's extremely atheistic quotes:

Quote"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."

[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]

"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]

"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]

"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]

"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]

"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]

"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'

[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]

"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"

[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]

"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers

Wireless to the New York Times.

BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."

[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]

"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."

[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."

[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."

[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

Quote from: "McQ"I really don't know, considering I have been the one atheist on the forum defending you, telling people to stop the name calling, to treat you in a civil manner. I've been taking your side and was impressed with much of what you said up until now, and I've been saying so. So your sarcasm doesn't fly with me. It's childish and uncalled for.

Sarcasm is exactly what that post cried out for. I do recall you calling out my credibility on just one statement I made, maybe you can see why I revereted to sarcasm.

QuoteSo what? He murdered millions, and historians agree on many aspects of his life and thought processes. What's your point?

To show that your comment:

QuoteYour PhD apparently didn't cover Hitler.

Had no point.

QuoteShow me the desperate attempts by atheists. Then I'll show you what legitimate historians say,

What website?

Quotewhat the people closest to Hitler said, and we'll see who's got the legitimate statement.

Our readers at least will.

Before we go there, take a look at his friend Mussolini's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini# ... us_beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini#Religious_beliefs)

QuoteIt's simple. Anyone who believes in a god is not an atheist. Or even better, one who believes in many gods, but not some, would be an atheist of some gods if it makes you feel better. For all your continued smart-assed, uncalled for remarks, you don't win by now trying to redefine atheism. A belief in the god of the bible, as Hitler had, disqualifies him as an atheist.

Hitler believed in the god of the bible? You mean Baal?  Because he certainly did not have Faith in the God of the Bible.

You are aware that the Christians were executed for atheism under the Romans, no?

QuoteNow, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp! No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, Have respect to your old age, and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, Away with the Atheists. Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ; Polycarp declared, Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?

And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, Swear by the fortune of Cæsar, he answered,

Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them.

The proconsul replied, Persuade the people. But Polycarp said,

To you I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1 But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm)

By the way, under your broad definition many Buddhist (especially the Theravada) are atheists.

QuoteThere's a lot you don't know about me. But the fact is that one needs no degree to repeat what is already widely known about Hitler. I don't need to be his personal doctor to be able to say that he was insane.

Interesting scientific method of medicine you practice there.

QuoteUmmm...I just said that. What's your point?

No, you said it failed because you diagnosed Hitler as insane.  You didn't examine his beliefs and the Vatican's at all.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteYou just lost a what credibility you had in my mind with this arrogant and inaccurate statement.

LOL. So I've lost credibility with the atheist. What will I do. :|

QuoteIf I were you, I'd try to regain it. This atheist has the ability to kick your snarky ass right out of here. This atheist doesn't appreciate that you failed to appreciate the extra mile I went on your behalf, only for you to come off like a punk.

Why doesn't the atheist have the ability to actually keep a thread on track? How did a simple discussion of the afterlife turn into a classic example of Godwin's Law?

QuoteSo I suggest an attitude change right quick. That fact is what you claimed is patently false and you should be ashamed to even trot it out and spout it like it's the truth when it has been discredited.

Only in your wet dreams of brilliance, but try not to lead into mental masturbation.

Quote from: "Sophus"-snip-

Just to put you out of your misery, let me just tell you what I was communicating; that Hitler's actions were so antithetical to Christianity that he could have possibly simply mouthed the right words for political expedience.

Translation: Adolph Hitler lied.

Quote from: "Sophus"The No True Scotsman fallacy is not the slightest bit persuasive.

Since assessing truthful heresy is a fool's chase, I don't go into who is a true follower of the Vatican or not. The "cultural catholics" say they do not believe in God, and yet they claim to be "catholic." Those are their assertions, not mine.

QuoteBesides, Hitler did not simply claim to be Catholic, he referenced belief in God and the Divine quote often (eg. "by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” [Mein Kampf]).

"Eternal nature is relentless in avenging transgressions of her laws. Hence, I believe I am acting in accordance with the wishes of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Sorry, "Eternal Nature" is not the Lord, God and Almighty Creator of the Bible." The god of Darwin is not I AM.

QuoteThis is especially evident throughout Mein Kampf,

Quite the expert on Mein Kampf, are you. Maybe you would like to quote his comments on the "Catholic Church."

Quoteand after he survived so many attacks on his life he came to believe he was divinely protected.

The first assassination attempt came over a decade after Mein Kampf was published.

Thinking that one has a charmed life means you are divinely protected, you would think would be off limits to an atheist. Arguing with enough atheist Zionists (Herzl was one of the same) who believe God gave the Jews Palestine but don't believe in God, I know that the theory doesn't always cover the reality. Human beings are funny things.

QuoteYou claimed Hitler was an atheist. I am asking you to prove it. Arguing a case is a little more useful (and difficult) than throwing out meaningless arrogant insults and "LOLs".

LOL. Well, you should know about arrogant insults without proof.

QuoteAnd yes, of course the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" dates far back, but Hitler wouldn't have put it on the Nazi Party's belt buckles if he were an atheist.

He didn't: the SS wore "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" ('My honour is loyalty'). I linked to that information, do I have to read it for you too? After all, Musslini through out pieties, although his widow testified that he was irreligious all his life except his last few years (when his fall may have taught him humility).

Quote from: "Achronos"]
Just to put you out of your misery, let me just tell you what I was communicating; that Hitler's actions were so antithetical to Christianity that he could have possibly simply mouthed the right words for political expedience.

Translation: Adolph Hitler lied.

That's a lovely assertion. But can you prove it?  There's a reason it's called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Here's a new outlandish assertion: Stalin lied about being an atheist. He was actually a Christian.
Apparently I can just make anything up about any mass murderer by claiming they lied. Or maybe it applies to anyone. How are your claims any more supported than by those who claim Barrack Obama is a muslim?

QuoteSince assessing truthful heresy is a fool's chase, I don't go into who is a true follower of the Vatican or not. The "cultural catholics" say they do not believe in God, and yet they claim to be "catholic." Those are their assertions, not mine.

And as I said, he did not simply claim to be a "cultural Catholic." He directly alludes to "the Lord" and being a "fighter" for his "Savior". No where does he claim to be some sort of Catholic atheist. He outlawed the German Freethinkers League.

QuoteThinking that one has a charmed life means you are divinely protected, you would think would be off limits to an atheist. Arguing with enough atheist Zionists (Herzl was one of the same) who believe God gave the Jews Palestine but don't believe in God, I know that the theory doesn't always cover the reality. Human beings are funny things.

Again, you are really doing some gymnastics here. This is all hypothetical with zero proof.

QuoteLOL. Well, you should know about arrogant insults without proof.

That long list of quotes doesn't qualify as any sort of proof for you? Would you like more?

Why did Hitler demonize atheists and associate them with "the Communist enemy"?

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."

That's interesting.... don't all atheists deny God?

QuoteHe didn't: the SS wore "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" ('My honour is loyalty'). I linked to that information, do I have to read it for you too? After all, Musslini through out pieties, although his widow testified that he was irreligious all his life except his last few years (when his fall may have taught him humility).

I never claimed he wrote it. But as the leader of a political party and the nation he would not have had it on those belts if he were against it. It is a curious thing that an atheist would outlaw atheist groups but not get rid of a religious motto plastered on uniform.

I think christians tend to refuse to acknowledge that hitler was catholic because they don't want to be lumped into the same group, makes it a bit harder to hide their intolerance and hate.

Quote from: "Sophus"That's a lovely assertion. But can you prove it?  There's a reason it's called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Here's a new outlandish assertion: Stalin lied about being an atheist. He was actually a Christian.
Apparently I can just make anything up about any mass murderer by claiming they lied. Or maybe it applies to anyone. How are your claims any more supported than by those who claim Barrack Obama is a muslim?

Actually, according to Islamic law, he is.

You are the one with the No True Scotsman fetish: you claim no true atheist would have "God with us" on his army's belt buckles.

QuoteAnd as I said, he did not simply claim to be a "cultural Catholic." He directly alludes to "the Lord" and being a "fighter" for his "Savior". No where does he claim to be some sort of Catholic atheist. He outlawed the German Freethinkers League.

He also outlawed the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Freemasons (who don't admit atheists). In the camps the JWs wore these (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjewishmemory.info%2Fimages%2F3000-3999%2F3273%2Fm1.jpg&hash=0fa99cfb6a5197625a020f54e1f4e31084f04786)

QuoteThe U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has devoted a section to the Nazi persecution of Freemasonry....In order to illustrate these fears, a film monitor shows photographs of an anti-Masonic exhibition that was organized by the Nazis. In a number of popular public exhibitions, the Nazis created mock Lodge rooms complete with skeletons of lodge officers.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/nazism.htm (http://www.masonicinfo.com/nazism.htm)

QuoteAgain, you are really doing some gymnastics here. This is all hypothetical with zero proof.

You remind me of the communist French minister, when faced with a successful social program based on capitalism, who demanded in exasperation "Yes, I see it works in reality, but how does it work in theory?!"

No gymnastics on my part, though I agree with you that the atheists are doing some rather artifully (that includes the Muslim atheists who argued the Muslim position on the miracle of the Quran. Many of them were also ashamed to admit that they couldn't bring themseles to eat pork. Iqbal once said that he didn't care if Allah existed, as long as Muhammad existed). Those people were not hypostheses. They were flesh and blood, and since they professed atheism, grey matter you would say as well.

QuoteThat long list of quotes doesn't qualify as any sort of proof for you?

No. Lord willling, I will return to that.

QuoteWould you like more?

I don't encourage plagiarism.

QuoteWhy did Hitler demonize atheists and associate them with "the Communist enemy"?

Same reason he coopted the deicide charge:propoganda purposes. The same reason the Communists allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to reconstitute its hieararchy and began restoring Churches.

Quote"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."

Again the plagiarism.

QuoteThat's interesting.... don't all atheists deny God?

Since, as I already posted, the Early Christian Martyrs were executed on the charge of atheism, no.

QuoteI never claimed he wrote it. But as the leader of a political party and the nation he would not have had it on those belts if he were against it.

A mind reader too. My, you are talented.

Such examples of atheists not acting according to your orthodoxy can, and have, been multiplied. Had he come up with it, or even if he had put it on SS uniforms, it might have meant something. But letting a time honored tradition of the imperial past he was trying to coopt continue (and not used on the institutions he was inventing), no, nothing.

QuoteIt is a curious thing that an atheist would outlaw atheist groups but not get rid of a religious motto plastered on uniform.

In the grand scheme of things, not curious at all. Not a jot more curious than the atheist Mussolini granting the Vatican sovereignty, nor the atheist Stalin restoring the Russian Orthodox patriarchate. Nor, by the way, the claims of the Muslim Ottomans and the Muslim Secular Turkish republic over the Orthodox Christian Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Quote from: "Sophus"EDIT: For good measure, here's a list of some of Hitler's extremely atheistic quotes:
Taken from here:
http://issuepedia.org/Adolf_Hitler/religion (http://issuepedia.org/Adolf_Hitler/religion)

Quote...Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."

As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."...

I could probably find more speeches in which Hitler claims himself to be a Christian, but I think the point has been made. He said it. Now, what did it mean?

It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn't, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God's name to gain support.

Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn't fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.

In fact, Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: "For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics."

In other words, while he was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn't beat the church in open warfare--so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it--how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later.

Author Doug Krueger notes that "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support." He adds, "If the [Christian] message won converts, it would seem that most Nazis were probably [Christians] too. After all, would appeal to divine mandate win more theists or atheists to the cause?" He also points out that "Even if Hitler was not a [Christian], he could still have been a theist. Or a deist" (http://www.infidels.org/library (http://www.infidels.org/library) /modern/doug_krueger/copin.html).   Remember that being a non-Christian is not equal to being an atheist.....

An interesting side note: Two of my sources, both of whom are well-versed in WWII history, said something to the effect that Hitler acted as if he had a messianic complex and perhaps believed himself to essentially be a god or the messiah. As one put it, you could certainly make the argument that he was a firm believer in God, if by "God" you mean "Adolf Hitler."....

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -christian (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian)

EDIT: More
http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html (http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html)

QuoteHitler said some Christian sounding things in his campaign speeches, of course he did. He would have been a fool to say "I am evil and i want to destroy society and launch us into a two front war we can't win, vote for me." Atheists naively assume we can trust his campaign speeches just as we would a personal diary, but most of us know you can't trust anything a politician says in a camping! In the 1930's voters in major Western countries expected Christian candidates even more than they do now.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

http://www.answers.org/history/hitquote.html (http://www.answers.org/history/hitquote.html)

QuoteHitler's Lies in action

From Webstie Adolf Hitler, Christian, Atheist, or Neither?

"As an example of Hitler's honesty, consider the following from a letter by Hitler to the French fascist Hervé and published in the Nazi Völkischer Beobachter on October 26, 1930 (Heiden, Der Fuehrer, p. 414)" :
"I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude... The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers... And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding... The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations."



Obviously he was lying, here's an even bigger lie.

Ibid


In a similar vein, consider this, from a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939: "Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration: 1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted..."


No one is going to persecuted for his/her religious views in Germany? Its' well documented that Hitler persecuted any many groups for their religious views, including Protestants, and Catholics(more on that latter)

Hitler youth song:

QuoteNo evil priest can prevent us from feeling that we are the children of Hitler / We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel / Away with incense and holy water / The Church can go hang for all we care

Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels. He had written the song "Die Fahne hoch" the national anthem with "Deutchsland uber Alles" during the Nazi regime. His group, the stormtroopers, also had a lovely song which said "Stormtrooper comrades hang the Jew and put the priest against the wall."
"Among Stormtroopers...anti-Catholicism was so pervassive that it seemed at times to have been almost as fervid as anti-Semiticism...once the war began, the party bannned radio transmission of religious broadcasts, seized church bells for scrap, and, pleading shortage of newsprint, shut down the Catholic press."
The Last Jews in Berlin By Leonard Gross
http://books.google.com/books?id=MeTRXb ... ng&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=MeTRXbveYHMC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=We+follow+not+Christ,+but+Horst+Wessel,+Away+with+incense+and+Holy+Water,+The+Church+can+go+hang&source=bl&ots=YK0QYbbPAM&sig=S70trIp9kNDa3rhDKGdVyzTQa6c&hl=en&ei=El4KTYuZE9mxnAf05tD5Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=We%20follow%20not%20Christ%2C%20but%20Horst%20Wessel%2C%20Away%20with%20incense%20and%20Holy%20Water%2C%20The%20Church%20can%20go%20hang&f=false)

QuoteActually, according to Islamic law, he is.

Are you a Churcher?

Quote..Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion

A Roman Catholic arguing that Hitler wasn't a Roman Catholic? Didn't see that coming.

QuoteI could probably find more speeches in which Hitler claims himself to be a Christian, but I think the point has been made. He said it. Now, what did it mean?

It means he actually said it, for starters, instead of relying on hearsay and translators. You're also quote mining the Table Talks because Hitler also said:

QuoteWe don't want to educate anyone in atheism. Table-Talk [p. 6]

An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)... Table-Talk [p. 59]

Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk [p. 9]

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]
Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143]

Obviously the Table Talks are no silver bullet in his faith since this is included in them. Whatever he was at this point in his life he certainly wasn't an atheist (see first two lines in bold) which is what you asserted he was.

Quote from: "Achronos"Actually, according to Islamic law, he [President Obama] is. [Muslim]

I'm sure you won't mind providing a source for this assertion.  If you're basing it on Edward Luttwak's New York Times column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin), I suggest you find yourself a better reference.  Luttwak's unfounded and apparently ignorant assertion that Obama is Muslim according to Islamic law was thoroughly debunked by Ali Eterez in an article for The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/obama-islam-smear-changes_b_101337.html).  The whole article is well worth a read, but I'll quote one particularly telling section:

Quote from: "Ali Eterez"Luttwack and the other fake experts promoting this new smear do not understand Islam. Religion is not hereditary as it is in Judaism. Islam is not a race. Just because a child has a Muslim father -- which, again, Obama didn't -- doesn't mean anything unless the child is being raised as a Muslim. At the time of birth, Muslims engage in a symbolic act -- of saying the Call to Prayer in the child's ear -- that renders a child Muslim. If Obama's father was agnostic/atheist, then he wouldn't have done such a thing.

No call to prayer in the ear, not raised as a Muslim, born to an atheist father, and then abandoned to a Christian mother both by father and his family, equals not Muslim. Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=94457#p94457 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=94457#p94457) .

It's not plagiarism to quote someone using quotes...quit being uncivil.

also, this huge derail will be split off into it's own thread at some point when I have time to find the start of it...if anyone can give me a post to start the split from that would be helpful.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Submission is the relationship.  Allah is Master, Muslim is slave.

You're forgetting about free-will which is the hallmark of a genuine relationship.  In Islam, if you leave - you die.  Does that sound like a relationship?  If so, then you might wish to read up on co-dependency.

In Christianity, if you leave, you go to Hell to be infinitely tortured for all of eternity. Does that sound like a relationship? If so, then you might wish to read up on codependency.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Submission is the relationship.  Allah is Master, Muslim is slave.

You're forgetting about free-will which is the hallmark of a genuine relationship.  In Islam, if you leave - you die.  Does that sound like a relationship?  If so, then you might wish to read up on co-dependency.

In Christianity, if you leave, you go to Hell to be infinitely tortured for all of eternity. Does that sound like a relationship? If so, then you might wish to read up on codependency.

It certainly is one idea of hell.  However the message of the Bible is plain.  The wages of sin is death, not perpetual buring and suffering in hell.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"In Christianity, if you leave, you go to Hell to be infinitely tortured for all of eternity. Does that sound like a relationship? If so, then you might wish to read up on codependency.

We don't hold to that particular dogma of Heaven and Hell, I will say that the concept of "torture" is alien to the Orthodox Church. I am more inclined to believe that we are all saved by Christ, whether we choose to believe or not and depending on how well we have trained our nous (heart or noetical faculty) depends upon the degree of heaven and hell when we experience the "vision" of God. You might bring up John 3:16 which contradicts this, however it's not just saying "Oh I believe in Christ" and get a free ticket into heaven (if that is even a literal place itself) but it more encompasses becoming more like Christ so we can experience more of the 'life' God has in store for us. We choose to either have Hell or Heaven, we make that choice.

If someone like Gandhi was denied into  'heaven' just because he didn't accept 'Christ' that would seem hardly fair in my opinion, however God's justice is not like mine and I wouldn't dare try to instigate what God's judgment actually would be (Another problem I have with the protestant Christian view who takes Christianity as a courtroom and condemns people to Hell, which isn't the case at all. Christ came to give us eternal life, has trampled over death itself. He didn't come on this Earth to condemn anyone of that.).

Just know that we cannot hold a particular dogma of Heaven and Hell, because simply we just do not know.

Hitler was an atheist and Stalin was a Christian. Happy?

Is there any way to change the title of this thread?  Because it sure has nothing to do with the nothingness of death.

Quote from: "Wilson"Is there any way to change the title of this thread?  Because it sure has nothing to do with the nothingness of death.

That's why it's been split, because it veered off track too much. I wanted to leave the title so people wouldn't be confused by where it went, but if you have an idea for it, I'm game.

I also wanted to say LS that people judge God because of hell's very existence. The particular and final judgments exist because of free will. It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be. Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

Quote from: "Achronos"...and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

Isn't that goddamn convenient? I've always been bothered by the "God Logic" b.s. and how God's ways are above man's ways blah blah. It's always brought up right around the point that the circular argument has come full.   Seems like a cop out to me.

Quote from: "Achronos"I also wanted to say LS that people judge God because of hell's very existence. The particular and final judgments exist because of free will. It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be. Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

Trust yourself above all else, and do not let anyone else do your thinking for you.

Quote from: "Achronos"Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

If ever I were tempted to hold up my fingers in front of me in the sign of the "A" (for atheist) to ward off the demonic, it would be now, being faced with the proposition that I surrender my mind - for to surrender my mind is to surrender my life.

Quote from: "Achronos"I also wanted to say LS that people judge God because of hell's very existence.

Nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: "Achronos"The particular and final judgments exist because of free will.

A statement as if it is fact, that is not supported by facts.

Quote from: "Achronos"It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be.

How about, because they do not square with how things are? Empirical evidence not something to just dismiss, while concepts that have no empirical evidence to back it up can just be dismissed.

Quote from: "Achronos"Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

No, I do not need to show humility before the Church, your mother or teacher. It's not simply a rebellion against any church, theistic concept or person in particular... it's not even a rebellion. I merely do not accept anything as true without understanding it and the evidence that backs it up. The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Quote from: "Davin"why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Except His existence, for starters.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Quote from: "Achronos"Except His existence, for starters.

Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Except His existence, for starters.

Yes, let's start with that, what reason is there to even postulate that this thing exists?

Quote from: "McQ"Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

The ontological argument, which has risen from the dead in recent decades, does hold that the thought of God's existence does imply his existence.

QuoteSo anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Um, actually the odds of existence in any form are very low.  

QuoteTalking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Really? There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things? There is no reason to exist as opposed to non-existence. Non-existence makes more sense.  Does that mean therefore things do not exist?

As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature. Hope that helps in understanding a bit more.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Hitler was an atheist and Stalin was a Christian. Happy?

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

Quote from: "Sophus"Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  :devil:

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Hitler was an atheist and Stalin was a Christian. Happy?

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthegoodjokes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2Fhey-hitler-i-think-you-lost-something.png&hash=615cd22b6c7b475036859c0ab4c7a348d04577bd)

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Sophus"Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  :devil:

I don't even know what this thread is about, anymore. Of course that means it really can't be derailed, so it will probably devolve into chaos, and I predict it will end up being over 20 pages long.
 :pop:

Quote from: "Achronos"The ontological argument, which has risen from the dead in recent decades, does hold that the thought of God's existence does imply his existence.

The thought of subatomic robot creators of everything, does imply subatomic robot creators of everything do exist.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteSo anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Um, actually the odds of existence in any form are very low.

Then why did you bring up odds if your going to negate your own point?

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteTalking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Really? There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things? There is no reason to exist as opposed to non-existence. Non-existence makes more sense.  Does that mean therefore things do not exist?

None that I have heard, perhaps you have some evidence that points only to a creator of the universe thing. Why not share what evidence you have that only points to the universe being created by a sentient thing?

Quote from: "Achronos"As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature. Hope that helps in understanding a bit more.

No, apophaticism does not show us in a very true sense, it shows us in a baseless speculation sense. I'm not asking to fully comprehend god, I'm asking why even throw a universe creating thing out to discuss at all.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Cycel"As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

That's incorrect. You've surely heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (You probably don't know that Jesus said something similar.) Jesus and Mohammed each made extraordinary claims. Our earliest accounts have Jesus backing up his claims with miracles as extraordinary evidence. The earliest accounts regarding Mohammed have no such claims (though some were added well after the fact). So, there's one objective differentiator between the two.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Cycel"As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

That's incorrect. You've surely heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (You probably don't know that Jesus said something similar.) Jesus and Mohammed each made extraordinary claims. Our earliest accounts have Jesus backing up his claims with miracles as extraordinary evidence. The earliest accounts regarding Mohammed have no such claims (though some were added well after the fact). So, there's one objective differentiator between the two.

Well if we're going to go by both of the religions' fictional accounts of what happened (fiction because neither is backed by any real evidence in the real world) Mohammad had the angel Gabriel come to him to give him God's new truth. That somebody wrote down a story about a Jewish carpenter named Jesus performed miracles, ergo is evidence of his divinity, or that an angel appeared before Mohammed, is no more evidence than the forensics that convicted Hannibal Lecter.

In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

Quote from: "Sophus"In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

You're misapplying the principle. This is very common. Jesus' claim of divinity was the extraordinary claims. His miracles were the extraordinary evidence. The Bible is our ordinary means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence. People tend to confuse the evidence with the means of perceiving it, which is necessarily ordinary. Whether you see it, hear it, or read about it, the perception is all ordinary.

QuoteWell if we're going to go by both of the religions' fictional accounts of what happened (fiction because neither is backed by any real evidence in the real world) Mohammad had the angel Gabriel come to him to give him God's new truth. That somebody wrote down a story about a Jewish carpenter named Jesus performed miracles, ergo is evidence of his divinity, or that an angel appeared before Mohammed, is no more evidence than the forensics that convicted Hannibal Lecter.

If we're going to go by your definitions of real evidence, then yes, we'll come to your conclusion. But, many people in the real world accept documents as real evidence. There are various criteria by which we assess their validity, but they're evidence.

Quote from: "Voter"Whether you see it, hear it, or read about it, the perception is all ordinary.

And ordinary people don't pick up an old book and automatically think there is reason to trust that it is about a true event...just imagine if we did that, we'd believe all sorts of nonsense about dragons, gnomes, leprechauns, thunder gods etc.  Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes.

Now, why again should we accept the bible as evidence of anything more than that some people either thought or wanted us to think certain events occurred?

Quote from: "Voter"If we're going to go by your definitions of real evidence, then yes, we'll come to your conclusion. But, many people in the real world accept documents as real evidence. There are various criteria by which we assess their validity, but they're evidence.

In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

Quote from: "Whitney"And ordinary people don't pick up an old book and automatically think there is reason to trust that it is about a true event...just imagine if we did that, we'd believe all sorts of nonsense about dragons, gnomes, leprechauns, thunder gods etc.

I agree. That's why I'm showing differences between Christianity and other religions. There are other differences as well. If an otherwise sane, intelligent person spent his life saying he had contact with gnomes and had received beneficial information from them, and suffered for his message without recanting, I might investigate it further. You're right that we don't automatically believe things in old books. However, most people don't automatically discount something that's only found in an old book, either.

QuoteSmart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes.

Wow, so no Christians are "smart people." Enough said.

Quote from: "Sophus"In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

Is it equal? Are there multiple sources? Did the event supposedly occur privately or publicly? You're painting too broadly. Again, there are various criteria by which we can and do assess testimony. You can reject them both if you like, but it's incorrect to say they're equally supported merely because they're both old and written.

Quote from: "Voter"Wow, so no Christians are "smart people." Enough said.

Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?  I think you are being a bit quick to be offended.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

Is it equal? Are there multiple sources? Did the event supposedly occur privately or publicly? You're painting too broadly. Again, there are various criteria by which we can and do assess testimony. You can reject them both if you like, but it's incorrect to say they're equally supported merely because they're both old and written.

They're both just stories written down. Multiple sources means little after years of hearsay and when it is known that the Gospels contradict and were not written by those who claimed to have written them. If anything we can be sure the authors of Gospels were liars more than we can Muhammad. Either way the onus is on you to demonstrate mere tales of magic as actual historic events.

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?

Sure: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."  

QuoteI think you are being a bit quick to be offended.

I'm not offended.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?

Sure: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."  

I fail to see where I said all Christians trust eye witness without also thinking there is collaborating evidence.

are you done playing with your strawman?

Quote from: "Sophus"They're both just stories written down. Multiple sources means little after years of hearsay and when it is known that the Gospels contradict and were not written by those who claimed to have written them. If anything we can be sure the authors of Gospels were liars more than we can Muhammad.

While I disagree with your reasoning, you're now arguing yourself that there are criteria by which we can differentiate validity of the two.

QuoteEither way the onus is on you to demonstrate mere tales of magic as actual historic events.

No, as I'm not proselytizing. You can reject both if you like, but you're incorrect to say that there's no difference in evidence between the two.

Quote from: "Whitney"I fail to see where I said all Christians trust eye witness without also thinking there is collaborating evidence.

are you done playing with your strawman?

That depends. Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence? If so, I'm done. If not, the charge stands, you've just pushed it back one step.

Quote from: "Voter"Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence?

Of course they could, they would just be misinformed.  A lot of smart Christians even think the ark was found, jesus's tomb was found etc, because someone they trusted said the evidence was there (like a minister or church leader) and they took the claim as being true due to that trust.  Smart doesn't mean never falling victim to trusting the wrong information source.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence?

Of course they could, they would just be misinformed.  A lot of smart Christians even think the ark was found, jesus's tomb was found etc, because someone they trusted said the evidence was there (like a minister or church leader) and they took the claim as being true due to that trust.  Smart doesn't mean never falling victim to trusting the wrong information source.

This certainly seems to contradict your earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."

That means that a smart person can't trust an eyewitness account without hard evidence, but can trust a hearsay account - still without hard evidence.

You are being difficult on purpose.

An eye witness account of an event (someone trying to remember something that happened) is not the same as someone relaying information claimed to come from a tangible source.

Quote from: "Whitney"You are being difficult on purpose.

Yes, the purpose being that you're trying to disavow saying that most Christians aren't smart. If you'd just admit it and retract it, we'd be done.

QuoteAn eye witness account of an event (someone trying to remember something that happened) is not the same as someone relaying information claimed to come from a tangible source.

True, it's not the same. The eyewitness account could be better or worse. I'll bet you accept eyewitness accounts without corraborating evidence all the time. I do. If a friend says they ran into a mutual friend the other day, I don't ask for a picture. That's accepting eyewitness testimony without hard evidence. Does that mean I'm not smart?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"You are being difficult on purpose.

Yes, the purpose being that you're trying to disavow saying that most Christians aren't smart. If you'd just admit it and retract it, we'd be done.

I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

(Note that "smart" here is refering to not dumb....obviously they can't all be smart that would be statistically impossible.)

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

Quote from: "Voter"That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it doesn't.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it does not contradict her earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes."

Unless you're speaking for all Christians by saying that every single Christian trusts all eye witness accounts without evidence. So which is it: are you speaking for Whitney, speaking for all Christians or are you just wrong? I think you're just wrong.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it does not contradict her earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes."

Unless you're speaking for all Christians by saying that every single Christian trusts all eye witness accounts without evidence. So which is it: are you speaking for Whitney, speaking for all Christians or are you just wrong? I think you're just wrong.

I was just going to let this die, but anyway...

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

Quote from: "Voter"1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roflcorner.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Ffacepalm%2Fjesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg&hash=7933de1eb939b98b681ada4a6b38ee28855cab11)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, premise 1 is faulty. You skipped over my point that we accept eyewitness testimony without corroborating hard evidence all the time, because it's true. Emoticons and pictures don't change that. (There should be a rule that when someone jumps into a discussion just to post a faceplant or other funny picture, his opponent's position is sound.)

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, premise 1 is faulty. You skipped over my point that we accept eyewitness testimony without corroborating hard evidence all the time, because it's true. Emoticons and pictures don't change that. (There should be a rule that when someone jumps into a discussion just to post a faceplant or other funny picture, his opponent's position is sound.)

Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

Quote from: "McQ"Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

Where am I wrong?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "McQ"Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

Where am I wrong?

Not up to me to show you, because it has already been pointed out in this thread and you ignored it. Re-read it yourself. Don't derail the thread by arguing this in the forum. Don't even respond to this post in the thread. You've wasted everyone's time already by not dropping this and moving on. PM another mod if you think you're having an issue.

Trolling is a art.

Quote from: "Sophus"In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

I can't believe you even had to say that.  Yet Voter is the second Christian in recent weeks who came on this message board and offered miracles as proof of something, instead of offering something as proof of miracles.

Miracles make the bible less credible, not more credible.  The Quran has far fewer miracles in it than the bible, and the miracles the Quran has are mostly repeated from the bible.  The Quran (at least the vast bulk of it) was also written by one man, a fact no one seriously disputes; nor does anyone seriously dispute the identity of that man, or that he really existed, or that he did the things his followers say he did.  Nor does the Quran, its author, or the disciples of its author, claim special divine status for any human, least of all the Quran's author.  All in all, Islam is far more credible than Christianity.  Why anyone would be an Abrahamist and not be Muslim is a mystery to me - unless the person is Jewish.  Why anyone would be an Abrahamist at all is a separate mystery, of course.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Cycel"As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

QuoteMiracles make the bible less credible, not more credible. The Quran has far fewer miracles in it than the bible, and the miracles the Quran has are mostly repeated from the bible. The Quran (at least the vast bulk of it) was also written by one man, a fact no one seriously disputes; nor does anyone seriously dispute the identity of that man, or that he really existed, or that he did the things his followers say he did. Nor does the Quran, its author, or the disciples of its author, claim special divine status for any human, least of all the Quran's author. All in all, Islam is far more credible than Christianity. Why anyone would be an Abrahamist and not be Muslim is a mystery to me - unless the person is Jewish. Why anyone would be an Abrahamist at all is a separate mystery, of course.

While I disagree with your criteria and weighting, you now seem to agree that your initial position was wrong. Good work, so far as it goes.

I think this might be pay back for all the times some atheist has overly nit picked at what some Christian said.

1. Otherwise smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Most Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not [strike:15k2hzek]smart people[/strike:15k2hzek] using critical faculties they would otherwise use in this instance because they're making an exception in favor of their bias for this particular religion - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are otherwise smart people  - Whitney


Did I fix it?

Quote from: "Voter"While I disagree with your criteria and weighting, you now seem to agree that your initial position was wrong. Good work, so far as it goes.

This is what I think you just said to me.  "Droid, you had said a Muslim could defend Islam in precisely the same words as a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy.  Now you're saying a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument, and a Muslim wouldn't make that argument, so you're disagreeing with your previous statement, and that's good."

I disagree with the above because I don't grant (and never said nor even implied) that a Greek Orthodox can defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument.  Why don't I grant that?  Because I don't grant that the miracles argument can be a defense of anything, since it in fact needs defending.  I can't defend myself from knife attack by stabbing myself.

Now, if you think the miracles argument (bogus as it is) is an important defense of Greek Orthodoxy, so much the worse for Greek Orthodoxy.  A miracles argument isn't important for defending Islam.  This gives Islam the stronger position, if I grant the importance of the miracles argument for defending Greek Orthodoxy, which I don't.

However, Islam certainly is in a better position from a certain perspective.  Greek Orthodoxy has to defend the stories of Jesus performing miracles.  Islam doesn't have to do that.  Greek Orthodoxy also, incidentally, has to defend claims of special divinity for Jesus.  Islam doesn't have to do that.  Islam has less nonsense to defend.

Frankly, anyone who believes in a personal Creator, believes this Creator would communicate with humans, and believes this Creator cares what humans think and do, should become Muslim.  Those three beliefs are the essence of Islam, to which little is added except details, such as the name of the man to whom the Creator communicated, and the specific words the Creator employed in its communications.

Quote from: "Sophus"1. Otherwise smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Most Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not [strike:2vyfdwud]smart people[/strike:2vyfdwud] using critical faculties they would otherwise use in this instance because they're making an exception in favor of their bias for this particular religion - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are otherwise smart people  - Whitney


Did I fix it?

I'm not allowed to pursue this line anymore, but apparently my opponents are. Well, that's one way to win an argument!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is what I think you just said to me.  "Droid, you had said a Muslim could defend Islam in precisely the same words as a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy.  Now you're saying a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument, and a Muslim wouldn't make that argument, so you're disagreeing with your previous statement, and that's good."

Correct.

QuoteI disagree with the above because I don't grant (and never said nor even implied) that a Greek Orthodox can defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument.  Why don't I grant that?  Because I don't grant that the miracles argument can be a defense of anything, since it in fact needs defending.  I can't defend myself from knife attack by stabbing myself.

This argument is self-defeating. Many people do accept arguments based on miracles, and so would challenge you to defend your position that the miracles argument can't be a defense of anything. Since your argument needs defending, by your own rules you cannot use it to defend your position that there is no difference in the defences of Islam and Greek Orthodoxy.

Quote from: "Voter"Did I fix it?

I'm not allowed to pursue this line anymore, but apparently my opponents are. Well, that's one way to win an argument![/quote]
Everyone needs to just drop it because it's stupid.

Quote from: "Voter"Many people do accept arguments based on miracles

In this day and age, there are actually Christians who, in all sincerity, argue that the bible is true because Jesus performed miracles and therefore Jesus is God and therefore the book that talks about him must be true?  Source, please.  I know believers operate under a different epistemology from non-believers, but this goes beyond even that.  To present the unbelievable as a reason for believing something else is to have lost touch with any semblance of logic.  Before I will accept that believers really are so illogical as that, I will need evidence.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Source, please.

That's in the Bible, isn't it?  

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"They're both just stories written down. Multiple sources means little after years of hearsay and when it is known that the Gospels contradict and were not written by those who claimed to have written them. If anything we can be sure the authors of Gospels were liars more than we can Muhammad.

While I disagree with your reasoning, you're now arguing yourself that there are criteria by which we can differentiate validity of the two.

QuoteEither way the onus is on you to demonstrate mere tales of magic as actual historic events.

No, as I'm not proselytizing. You can reject both if you like, but you're incorrect to say that there's no difference in evidence between the two.

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.nearlyfreespeech.net%2Fjandmstatic%2Fstrips%2F2010-12-24.png&hash=b63a92313e122ecbc9eebd3ba1692cc0545f2a3e)

Quote from: "Sophus"I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

I found a web site that does what Voter says Christians do: Testimony #5 - Miracles - http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-miracles.php

But there's an important caveat to be made here.  The web site I reference is Christians talking to Christians.  It isn't Christians talking to atheists.  Arguments that make sense within a system don't necessarily make sense outside that system - and I honestly think most Christians realize that.  They would have to be morons not to, and I don't think they're morons.  I actually identify trolls precisely by their readiness to present to atheists arguments that only make sense if offered to Christians.  Trolls don't care about making sense.  My troll detector starts to ping whenever I notice someone who clearly doesn't care about making sense.

Quote from: "Sophus"I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story.

Are you serious? Of course it is. Do you think historians ignore written accounts of alleged events as not constituting evidence? That's ridiculous.

QuoteThe new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

No it doesn't. The Oz analogy fails in a number of ways.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Sophus"I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

I found a web site that does what Voter says Christians do: Testimony #5 - Miracles - http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-miracles.php

But there's an important caveat to be made here.  The web site I reference is Christians talking to Christians.  It isn't Christians talking to atheists.  Arguments that make sense within a system don't necessarily make sense outside that system - and I honestly think most Christians realize that.  They would have to be morons not to, and I don't think they're morons.  I actually identify trolls precisely by their readiness to present to atheists arguments that only make sense if offered to Christians.  Trolls don't care about making sense.  My troll detector starts to ping whenever I notice someone who clearly doesn't care about making sense.

Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

Quote from: "Voter"Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Things that are good can be used for bad. You of all people should know that.

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Achronos"Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Things that are good can be used for bad. You of all people should know that.

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

The atomic bomb that landed on Hiroshima may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The alternative would have been a horrific struggle to the bitter end by the diciplined Japanese who valued honor and valour above their own lives. I would hate to think how many World Wars there would have been if not for the invention of the atomic/nuclear bomb.

It's a bit early to say nuclear weapons have on balance benefited humanity through their deterrent effect.
Give it a few more hundred years and maybe a reasonable judgement could be made.

Quote from: "Achronos"Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Hiroshima isn't an atomic bomb either. It's a city on which one of those weapons was deployed. The Hiroshima bombing was certainly a disaster, however, the bomb which was used to achieve it was a great discovery. See the difference..?

In wake of nuclear weapons, we have nuclear power plants and a whole branch of science which actually helps us better understand the world and develop new gadgets and gizmos and things for me to stuff blue diodes in.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Einstein on the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."

Sure justification there however he also said: "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life."
http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm (http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm)

But yes the atomic bomb sure is a great thing for us.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Achronos"Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Hiroshima isn't an atomic bomb either. It's a city on which one of those weapons was deployed. The Hiroshima bombing was certainly a disaster, however, the bomb which was used to achieve it was a great discovery. See the difference..?

A great discovery that if fallen into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes may just be the end of all of us.

I'll quote Einstein again: "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!"

The thing Einstein had wrong with that assertion is there will be no rocks at the end of WWIII. It may have stopped Japan in WWII, but we would be very ignorant to say it's usage in WWIII (if it occurs) would not be near apocalyptic.

Hiroshima, I would hope, would be a warning sign of the catastrophic effects of what could happen when they are used. I am fortunate, even in the midst of what I would argue as a tragedy, that it didn't get worse than that.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

Quote from: "Achronos"A great discovery that if fallen into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes may just be the end of all of us.

The greatness of a discovery needs not be diminished by the results of its use. THAT diminishes the greatness of humans as a specie... In my book, at least.

Same goes for disasters. A disaster is a disaster even if something good comes of it. The good is a testement to the fact that humans can, on occasion, turn tables to productiveness, but it does not diminish the disastrous part of the disaster.

Great only sometimes means good.
From Wordweb, not the definitive definer of words, but it is useful:
1) ]Relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind
2) Of major significance or importance
3)Remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect
4)Very good

QuoteAfter all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great

Ye that is a Harry Potter quote, makes as much sense as St.Theophilus of Antioch.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

Exactly. This guy is far to dense to understand that though.

QuoteRight because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

That's pretty much true if one believes in an omnigod (omniscient).

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story.

Are you serious? Of course it is. Do you think historians ignore written accounts of alleged events as not constituting evidence? That's ridiculous.

QuoteThe new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

No it doesn't. The Oz analogy fails in a number of ways.

:|

Quote from: "Sophus":|

Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

Is there one single factual account of Jesus..?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, and I'm simply saying we should apply their methods of differentiating between factual accounts, plausible accounts, embellished lies, and fiction to Jesus, Mohammed, Gilgamesh, etc.

Is there one single factual account of Jesus..?  

Aside from a priori rejection of certain aspects of the gospels, they fall more to the factual account side of the continuum than to the fiction side.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.

Right because humans aren't responsible for the genocides, poverty, murders, wars etc in the world. It's all God's fault, we have no free choice or decision to change any of that. So let's just scapegoat God then instead of actually making a change in ourselves to do better in the world.

I forgot it's so easy to point the finger.

Uh, what???

No one's blaming God. He doesn't exist, remember?

They're blaming the BELIEF in God.

If He doesn't exist then why bother debating over Him, because obviously He doesn't exist.

If we Christians merely believe in a lie, why are all the atheists in such a huff? What will they gain if they do convince us?  And what will we gain if we are convinced?  Their desperation?  A lack of meaning to our lives? Their conviction that the only thing to look forward to is the grave?  Then what is the meaning of "our lie" (if we pretend for a moment that it is a lie), if God doesn't exist, and there is no meaning behind the word "truth"?  Are they perhaps trying to help us see the truth?  What truth? What do they have as a point of reference for "truth"? To what end, and for what reason, if "purpose" and "reason" do not exist in the universe?

So, let us assume that God does not exist. Let us assume that Christians are struggling in vain, and that in the end, they too will acquire what everyone does:  "a grave", and nothing more. So, do Christians really have something to gain?

Yes, they do. Because naturally (although it is not the basic reason for their faith), if God exists, they will gain the heavenly kingdom (Glorification). But if God does not exist, they again will have benefited, because they will feel solace throughout their life - they will have someone to tell their woes to in times of ultimate desperation, when other people are unable to console them. They feel that they have someone to protect them during their fears, and a life that feels like it is worth something and is meaningful. And yes, people like these are much happier than others, who don't believe.  So what if they don't live with all the comforts? So what if they don't get to savor everything? At the moment of death, none of the things that they savored will remain.  But for the faithful, the moment of death is something that they have anticipated, with hope and with courage, and not with fear and disappointment. And that is what true FREEDOM is about: not the hopelessness that the pessimist author and philosopher Kazantzakis had labeled as "freedom" (On his tombstone reads: "I HOPE FOR NOTHING. I FEAR NOTHING. I AM FREE"). To the faithful, their entire life is pleasurable, because they live it with faith and hope, without any fears and desperation; because even when confronting death in the person of a loved one, they remain steadfast to the hope that they will meet again. If the universe is just a coincedence (as Atheists want it to be) and truth is something relevant (as modern trends try to persuade us) then why doesn't this make a man of faith happier ?

These words are not a mere theory.  I myself had carried out my own personal research some time ago. I started to ask people of various ages and faiths to tell me how they would characterize their life in one or two words. The responses that I collected were very many, but the conclusion was only one:  I did not record a single believing person who declared himself to be miserable. And not a single faith-less person that declared himself to be blissfully happy!

So again I'll ask if God does not exist, in any religion, why debate over Him? You are merely debating over something that does not (in the atheist view) exist. So you are essentially wasting your time arguing over a non-existent entity, that to me sounds alot more foolish than someone who does believe in God or a god.

Quote from: "Achronos"If He doesn't exist then why bother debating over Him, because obviously He doesn't exist.

If we Christians merely believe in a lie, why are all the atheists in such a huff? What will they gain if they do convince us?  And what will we gain if we are convinced?  Their desperation?  A lack of meaning to our lives? Their conviction that the only thing to look forward to is the grave?  Then what is the meaning of "our lie" (if we pretend for a moment that it is a lie), if God doesn't exist, and there is no meaning behind the word "truth"?  Are they perhaps trying to help us see the truth?  What truth? What do they have as a point of reference for "truth"? To what end, and for what reason, if "purpose" and "reason" do not exist in the universe?

So, let us assume that God does not exist. Let us assume that Christians are struggling in vain, and that in the end, they too will acquire what everyone does:  "a grave", and nothing more. So, do Christians really have something to gain?

Yes, they do. Because naturally (although it is not the basic reason for their faith), if God exists, they will gain the heavenly kingdom (Glorification). But if God does not exist, they again will have benefited, because they will feel solace throughout their life - they will have someone to tell their woes to in times of ultimate desperation, when other people are unable to console them. They feel that they have someone to protect them during their fears, and a life that feels like it is worth something and is meaningful. And yes, people like these are much happier than others, who don't believe.  So what if they don't live with all the comforts? So what if they don't get to savor everything? At the moment of death, none of the things that they savored will remain.  But for the faithful, the moment of death is something that they have anticipated, with hope and with courage, and not with fear and disappointment. And that is what true FREEDOM is about: not the hopelessness that the pessimist author and philosopher Kazantzakis had labeled as "freedom" (On his tombstone reads: "I HOPE FOR NOTHING. I FEAR NOTHING. I AM FREE"). To the faithful, their entire life is pleasurable, because they live it with faith and hope, without any fears and desperation; because even when confronting death in the person of a loved one, they remain steadfast to the hope that they will meet again. If the universe is just a coincedence (as Atheists want it to be) and truth is something relevant (as modern trends try to persuade us) then why doesn't this make a man of faith happier ?

These words are not a mere theory.  I myself had carried out my own personal research some time ago. I started to ask people of various ages and faiths to tell me how they would characterize their life in one or two words. The responses that I collected were very many, but the conclusion was only one:  I did not record a single believing person who declared himself to be miserable. And not a single faith-less person that declared himself to be blissfully happy!

So again I'll ask if God does not exist, in any religion, why debate over Him? You are merely debating over something that does not (in the atheist view) exist. So you are essentially wasting your time arguing over a non-existent entity, that to me sounds alot more foolish than someone who does believe in God or a god.

Sigh.

I'm pretty sure this has been said A BUNCH OF TIMES ALREADY, but I'll say it again: the debate over God matters for two reasons:

1. Religion can be dangerous. Take Islamic extremists as an example. Yes, yes, most religious people don't go and bomb buildings, but it's not just radical things like that. A lot of them oppose the rights of homosexuals, teaching proper science to children, stem cell research, etc. etc. Yes, yes, not all believers even do that sort of stuff, and with them I have no qualms.

2. At least for me personally, it's not about getting people to stop believing in God, it's getting people to think critically, skeptically, with an open-mind, and the like. I view  atheism as the natural result of this, but even if it isn't for some people, then it's okay, because most likely they will have stopped doing crazy things like some of the stuff I mentioned in the first reason.

3. It can be fun -- some people like to debate about certain things. Why argue about which sports team is best? It's pointless.

(Yes, I know I said I would only have two reasons...sue me  )

Everytime I try to sign on to this board I always get a request to enter in an image confirmation code, someone want to get into my account that bad? ;)

Quote2. At least for me personally, it's not about getting people to stop believing in God, it's getting people to think critically, skeptically, with an open-mind, and the like. I view  atheism as the natural result of this, but even if it isn't for some people, then it's okay, because most likely they will have stopped doing crazy things like some of the stuff I mentioned in the first reason.

This is the problem with the West. The most prevalent disease for the Western man is rationalism. Although the modern rationalist worldview was born in Western Europe during the Enlightenment era, it has progressively been inundating the entire world.

Ultimately, the malady of modern rationalism comes down to one essential ingredient: trusting the conclusions of one’s logical mind. We of the modern West have been raised with an underlying assumption, summed up in the well-known phrase of Rene Descartes at the beginning of the Enlightenment era: "I think, therefore I am." The worldview of modern rationalism, having lost an awareness of the immortal soul in man, leads us to believe that our thoughts are who we are, and, conversely, that we are the sum total of our thoughts. Therefore, we automatically feel that we have to trust our thoughts, to take a stand for them, to defend them as we would our own flesh and blood.

This is the essential fallacy of the modern worldview. It is precisely by placing absolute trust in the formulations of the fallen human mind â€" rather than in divine revelation â€" that modern Western man has come to water down or abandon his once-cherished Christian Faith. As an Orthodox Christian living in the West I must act against this influence by refusing to accord outright trust my thoughts. The devil does not hunt after those who are lost; he hunts after those who are aware, those who are close to God. He takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind.

We ought always to be careful and be in constant hesitation about whether things are really as we think. For when someone is constantly occupied with his thoughts and trusts in them, the devil will manage things in such a way that he will make the man evil, even if by nature he was good. The ancient fathers did not trust their thoughts at all, but even in the smallest things, when they had to give an answer, they addressed the matter in their prayer, joining to it fasting, in order in some way to ‘force’ Divine Grace to inform them what was the right answer according to God. And when they received the 'information,’ they gave the answer.

Today I observe that even with great matters, when someone asks, before he has even had the time to complete his question, we interrupt him and answer him. This shows that not only do we not seek enlightenment from the Grace of God, but we do not even judge with the reason God gave us. On the contrary, whatever our thoughts suggest to us, immediately, without hesitation, we trust it and consent to it, often with disastrous results.

Almost all of us view thoughts as being something simple and natural, and that is why we naively trust them. However, we should neither trust them nor accept them. Thoughts are like airplanes flying in the air. If you ignore them, there is no problem. If you pay attention to them, you create an airport inside your head and permit them to land!

QuoteIt can be fun -- some people like to debate about certain things. Why argue about which sports team is best? It's pointless.

[/quote]
Yet whatever "worldview" we take, it defines who we are as a person and it shapes our actions and thoughts. That is hardly pointless.

Quote from: "Achronos"Everytime I try to sign on to this board I always get a request to enter in an image confirmation code, someone want to get into my account that bad?

I'll confess, it's me. As part 4 of the Atheist Global Plan of Domination dictates, I intend to hack into your account and post a bunch of troll stuff to make Christians look bad.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"1. Religion can be dangerous. Take Islamic extremists as an example. Yes, yes, most religious people don't go and bomb buildings, but it's not just radical things like that. A lot of them oppose the rights of homosexuals, teaching proper science to children, stem cell research, etc. etc. Yes, yes, not all believers even do that sort of stuff, and with them I have no qualms.

Atheism can be just as dangerous, and you will have extremists (or what are known as militant atheists) in Atheism.

Haahaaaaaahaaahahahahahahahhaaa!

Yeah, right. What most people call militant atheists or fundamentalist atheists are old men who write books that may offend the sensibilities of religious people. What most people call extremist theists are people who will blow up a bus for Allah. Try nice, but no.

QuoteWith religion, it depends on each religion, but they all have internal inconsistencies that are fatal IMHO. Studying a religion, I first take it as if it were true, try to see how it looks at the world.  None, however, have matched Christianity, in particular Orthodoxy.

I am extremely skeptical of this.

Quote

Quote2. At least for me personally, it's not about getting people to stop believing in God, it's getting people to think critically, skeptically, with an open-mind, and the like. I view  atheism as the natural result of this, but even if it isn't for some people, then it's okay, because most likely they will have stopped doing crazy things like some of the stuff I mentioned in the first reason.

This is the problem with the West. The most prevalent disease for the Western man is rationalism. Although the modern rationalist worldview was born in Western Europe during the Enlightenment era, it has progressively been inundating the entire world.

Yes, I'm sure the problem with the West is that people are too rational. Nice try, but once again, no.

QuoteBlah blah blah thinking is bad blah blah blah trust in God blah blah blah you can't trust logic

The statement that logic is correct is an axiom.

QuoteIt can be fun -- some people like to debate about certain things. Why argue about which sports team is best? It's pointless.

[/quote]
Yet whatever "worldview" we take, it defines who we are as a person and it shapes our actions and thoughts. That is hardly pointless.[/quote]
I'd like to point out that atheism isn't a world-view, although that doesn't contradict what you say. This argument seems to be in favor of atheism from my perspective -- and I said earlier, I believe that atheism/agnosticism/skepticism/free-thinking/whatever is one of the many natural and logical steps one takes when starting to think rationally and examine some of their long-held and core beliefs. So to me, atheism = good, generally.

Quote from: "Achronos"Everytime I try to sign on to this board I always get a request to enter in an image confirmation code, someone want to get into my account that bad?

I'll confess, it's me. As part 4 of the Atheist Global Plan of Domination dictates, I intend to hack into your account and post a bunch of troll stuff to make Christians look bad.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"1. Religion can be dangerous. Take Islamic extremists as an example. Yes, yes, most religious people don't go and bomb buildings, but it's not just radical things like that. A lot of them oppose the rights of homosexuals, teaching proper science to children, stem cell research, etc. etc. Yes, yes, not all believers even do that sort of stuff, and with them I have no qualms.

Atheism can be just as dangerous, and you will have extremists (or what are known as militant atheists) in Atheism.

Haahaaaaaahaaahahahahahahahhaaa!

Yeah, right. What most people call militant atheists or fundamentalist atheists are old men who write books that may offend the sensibilities of religious people. What most people call extremist theists are people who will blow up a bus for Allah. Try nice, but no.

QuoteWith religion, it depends on each religion, but they all have internal inconsistencies that are fatal IMHO. Studying a religion, I first take it as if it were true, try to see how it looks at the world.  None, however, have matched Christianity, in particular Orthodoxy.

I am extremely skeptical of this.

Quote

Quote2. At least for me personally, it's not about getting people to stop believing in God, it's getting people to think critically, skeptically, with an open-mind, and the like. I view  atheism as the natural result of this, but even if it isn't for some people, then it's okay, because most likely they will have stopped doing crazy things like some of the stuff I mentioned in the first reason.

This is the problem with the West. The most prevalent disease for the Western man is rationalism. Although the modern rationalist worldview was born in Western Europe during the Enlightenment era, it has progressively been inundating the entire world.

Yes, I'm sure the problem with the West is that people are too rational. Nice try, but once again, no.

QuoteBlah blah blah thinking is bad blah blah blah trust in God blah blah blah you can't trust logic

The statement that logic is correct is an axiom.

Quote

QuoteIt can be fun -- some people like to debate about certain things. Why argue about which sports team is best? It's pointless.

Yet whatever "worldview" we take, it defines who we are as a person and it shapes our actions and thoughts. That is hardly pointless.

I'd like to point out that atheism isn't a world-view, although that doesn't contradict what you say. This argument seems to be in favor of atheism from my perspective -- and I said earlier, I believe that atheism/agnosticism/skepticism/free-thinking/whatever is one of the many natural and logical steps one takes when starting to think rationally and examine some of their long-held and core beliefs. So to me, atheism = good, generally.[/quote]

EDIT:

Quote from: "Achronos"This is the essential fallacy of the modern worldview. It is precisely by placing absolute trust in the formulations of the fallen human mind â€" rather than in divine revelation â€" that modern Western man has come to water down or abandon his once-cherished Christian Faith. As an Orthodox Christian living in the West I must act against this influence by refusing to accord outright trust my thoughts. The devil does not hunt after those who are lost; he hunts after those who are aware, those who are close to God. He takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind.

This is some exactly the reason why we must try to spread logical thinking and rationalism, and as a result, atheism. Mindsets like the above are downright dangerous. This is what religion does to people. This is why it must be fought.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is some exactly the reason why we must try to spread logical thinking and rationalism, and as a result, atheism.

Ah yes, because atheism is the natural outcome of logical thinking and rationalism *rollseyes*

QuoteMindsets like the above are downright dangerous. This is what religion does to people. This is why it must be fought.

You're mistaking "religion" for unthinking irrationality. Try applying some of this supposed logical thinking and rationalism that you think you're utilizing and start to think above your false representations and silly mischaracterizations.

I am also saying that too much thinking, not thinking merely, is the problem.

And actually, recent studies show that if people were trying to make decisions based solely on logic we would get stuck in a loop.  All logic can tell us is what the outcome(s) of a particular decision might be, not which outcome is preferable.  Preference is a value judgment, and thus ruled by the intuitive and emotional parts of the brain.

Quote from: "Achronos"And actually, recent studies show that if people were trying to make decisions based solely on logic we would get stuck in a loop.  All logic can tell us is what the outcome(s) of a particular decision might be, not which outcome is preferable.  Preference is a value judgment, and thus ruled by the intuitive and emotional parts of the brain.

Depends on what you are trying to decide.

Logic works very well on math problems...not so well on what color to paint a room.

I also wanted to say there is tremendous beauty and consistency in the universe.  To me, that holds quite a sacred value to creation.

The fact that we are advanced enough to manipulate things in this world, and eventually in the universe holds an even higher level of sacredness.

But you might say "But we have come to understand that 'beauty' is nothing but a psychological response that has been programmed into us by evolution. It is an accomplishment to understand this fact, to rise above our evolutionary programming, and to dismiss what we want to believe in favour of what is real"

By the same reasoning couldn't I argue against anything you claim to be reality? Beauty might be a psychological response, but that doesn't mean that it is any less real than a star or blade of grass or atom. For what is observation but a neurological response that has been programmed into us by the same evolution?  

Just because I know the wall I see is an optical response created by the reaction of light on the retinal nerve doesn't mean I can rise above my evolutionary programming and keep driving straight ahead. By ignoring my evolutionary programming in this circumstance I take myself outside of evolution altogether!

The idea of the "beautiful" and the "sacred" is still evolutionarily advantageous to our species. I find a forest beautiful, and good thing, because it keeps the carbon dioxide levels down and emits the oxygen my species needs to survive. I find a woman beautiful, she happens to hold the preferred genes for the continuation and betterment of my species. I hold life sacred, especially human life, and this prevents my species from going into extinction due to genocide or atomic war.

Even if you take the observation of the senses out of the equation and hold to strictly what is mathematically provable, you still can't rid us of beauty. Beauty can be mathematically defined, we prefer certain patterns because of the mathematical soundness inherent in them. The human face possessed by the person with the best genetic contributions will have a more perfect proportion. The forest grows according to mathematical principles we still don't entirely comprehend. And life holds within it a near infinite mathematical complexity and harmony.

What is shaped by evolution is necessarily that which is shaped by nature. If beauty is in nature, surely, our brain develops both an emotional and a logical sense of what beauty is. Just as evolution shapes my discernment of colors, so in beauty, sacredness, and value of things around us.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"And actually, recent studies show that if people were trying to make decisions based solely on logic we would get stuck in a loop.  All logic can tell us is what the outcome(s) of a particular decision might be, not which outcome is preferable.  Preference is a value judgment, and thus ruled by the intuitive and emotional parts of the brain.

Depends on what you are trying to decide.

Logic works very well on math problems...not so well on what color to paint a room.

Math isn't making a decision.  When I look at 2+2 (assuming base 10) there is no decision as to what the sum is, I can prefer 5 or 12 all day long, but the answer is 4.  Pi is always going to be equal to the circumference divided by the diameter, no matter how lazy I'm feeling 3.14 is always going to be short an infinite amount of decimal places.

Questions like should I have the grapefruit or the orange, or should I date this girl or that one, or how should I treat this particular person I am interacting with have no logical solution.  All logic can tell me is that the grapefruit tastes different than the orange, it's up to me if I prefer bitter or sweet.  Logic might tell me that one girl will make me happier while the other turns me on more, it's my preference as to whether or not I'd prefer happiness or miserable indulgence.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"This is the essential fallacy of the modern worldview. It is precisely by placing absolute trust in the formulations of the fallen human mind â€" rather than in divine revelation â€" that modern Western man has come to water down or abandon his once-cherished Christian Faith. As an Orthodox Christian living in the West I must act against this influence by refusing to accord outright trust my thoughts. The devil does not hunt after those who are lost; he hunts after those who are aware, those who are close to God. He takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind.

This is some exactly the reason why we must try to spread logical thinking and rationalism, and as a result, atheism. Mindsets like the above are downright dangerous. This is what religion does to people. This is why it must be fought.

I strongly agree.  Passionately.  Fiercely.  This is the enemy.  This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

QuoteAchronos wrote:This is the essential fallacy of the modern worldview. It is precisely by placing absolute trust in the formulations of the fallen human mind â€" rather than in divine revelation

I don't have absolute trust in the formulations of human brains, they could well be the death of us all.
What else is on offer, formulations delivered bay an alleged 2,000 year dead carpenter, which have had the Chinese whispers treatment?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is some exactly the reason why we must try to spread logical thinking and rationalism, and as a result, atheism.

Ah yes, because atheism is the natural outcome of logical thinking and rationalism *rollseyes*

You seem to be saying that sarcastically, yet it makes perfect sense. I'm confused  

Quote

QuoteMindsets like the above are downright dangerous. This is what religion does to people. This is why it must be fought.

You're mistaking "religion" for unthinking irrationality.

The two are closely related.

QuoteTry applying some of this supposed logical thinking and rationalism that you think you're utilizing and start to think above your false representations and silly mischaracterizations.

Uh huh.

QuoteI am also saying that too much thinking, not thinking merely, is the problem.

Once again, our problem is not thinking too much. Rather, it's the exact opposite. This is clearly evident if you just look around (at least, in the good 'ol U.S. of A).

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"And actually, recent studies show that if people were trying to make decisions based solely on logic we would get stuck in a loop.  All logic can tell us is what the outcome(s) of a particular decision might be, not which outcome is preferable.  Preference is a value judgment, and thus ruled by the intuitive and emotional parts of the brain.

Depends on what you are trying to decide.

Logic works very well on math problems...not so well on what color to paint a room.

Math isn't making a decision.  When I look at 2+2 (assuming base 10) there is no decision as to what the sum is, I can prefer 5 or 12 all day long, but the answer is 4.  Pi is always going to be equal to the circumference divided by the diameter, no matter how lazy I'm feeling 3.14 is always going to be short an infinite amount of decimal places.

Questions like should I have the grapefruit or the orange, or should I date this girl or that one, or how should I treat this particular person I am interacting with have no logical solution.  All logic can tell me is that the grapefruit tastes different than the orange, it's up to me if I prefer bitter or sweet.  Logic might tell me that one girl will make me happier while the other turns me on more, it's my preference as to whether or not I'd prefer happiness or miserable indulgence.

Wrong again...kind of. Logic and rational thinking will tell you that the choice you prefer is best in these situations.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You seem to be saying that sarcastically, yet it makes perfect sense. I'm confused  

Atheism undermines science, because science begins on the supposition that the universe is rational and intelligible.  This is a belief that does not arise from science, but one that must be held before it.  Because pure reductionist materialism, which atheists generally subscribe to, is based on the premise of random unguided processes.  If we then reduce the nature of believing something, i.e. the way our brain works, to the physics and chemistry of neurological structures, this raises a question:  If my beliefs, and my theories are simply the result of the motion of atoms in my brain produced by an unguided mindless process, why should I believe them?  

Atheism undercuts the scientific endeavor.  An argument that purports to be a rationality rising from utter irrationality doesn’t even rise to the level of a delusion.  It is logically incoherent.  

As for the supposed "problem of evil" that you think Christians have no answer for, I'd like to point out a few things.  Tucked away within the assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is a hidden premise, namely, that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.  This reasoning is, of course, fallacious.  Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one.  We see lurking within this supposedly hard-nosed skepticism an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive faculties.  If our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well then, there can’t be any!  This is faith of a high order.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You seem to be saying that sarcastically, yet it makes perfect sense. I'm confused  

Atheism undermines science, because science begins on the supposition that the universe is rational and intelligible.

This is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

QuoteThis is a belief that does not arise from science, but one that must be held before it.

Again, axiom.

QuoteBecause pure reductionist materialism, which atheists generally subscribe to, is based on the premise of random unguided processes.  If we then reduce the nature of believing something, i.e. the way our brain works, to the physics and chemistry of neurological structures, this raises a question:  If my beliefs, and my theories are simply the result of the motion of atoms in my brain produced by an unguided mindless process, why should I believe them?

Why shouldn't I?

QuoteAtheism undercuts the scientific endeavor.  An argument that purports to be a rationality rising from utter irrationality doesn’t even rise to the level of a delusion.  It is logically incoherent.

Yeahhhhhhhhhh...whatever you say, buddy.

QuoteAs for the supposed "problem of evil" that you think Christians have no answer for, I'd like to point out a few things.  Tucked away within the assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is a hidden premise, namely, that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.

God made us in his image. Why would he not want us to understand the world? Doesn't he want us to use the logic and rationality he gave us?

And Epicurus isn't asking why pointless evil exists, he's asking why evil exists at all. If God is perfect and can do anything, why couldn't he make things happen the way he wants them to without using evil? The answer: he can.

QuoteThis reasoning is, of course, fallacious. Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one.

But it's pretty good evidence that there isn't one.

QuoteWe see lurking within this supposedly hard-nosed skepticism an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive faculties.  If our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well then, there can’t be any!  This is faith of a high order.

Again, the "belief" that logic and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful. And since your god doesn't exist, we can't trust him to help with anything.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

And the Epicurean quote that was quoted. It consists of two answers. Man's free will and God's incarnation. In fact, I remember reading from a Church father, "without sin, there is no salvation." Truly, we take our lives for granted.  Sometimes we need a little nudge in life to make us stronger, and the mistakes we do now help us to avoid them later.

If you give any example of whatever evil goes on in this world, there's always a Christian answer to it.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

That's a liberal view you have, and I commend you for it, but you hold a fringe position; most believes hold the bible as inerrant, and believe the story of Abraham to be a literal historical event. Billions of people are in the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), so most of them are followers of Abraham.

By the way -- are you going to ignore my post, or what?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

That's fine, as long as you realize that you're not starting from any more of a "reasonable" place than a theist.

QuoteWhy shouldn't I?

Because, as you've said before, you demand good reasons to believe something and this worldview is laughably unreasonable.  You have absolutely no grounds to say that you can trust your beliefs and experiences knowing full well that they're "nothing more" than the firing of neurons in the brain.  Unguided, random firings.  I mean, by all means, believe them.  But don't pretend that it's a reasonable position to do so.

QuoteYeahhhhhhhhhh...whatever you say, buddy.

Nice retort.

QuoteGod made us in his image. Why would he not want us to understand the world? Doesn't he want us to use the logic and rationality he gave us?

Sure.  Did I imply otherwise?  Unless of course you think "understanding the world" amounts to no mystery whatsoever and having every single answer.

QuoteAnd Epicurus isn't asking why pointless evil exists, he's asking why evil exists at all. If God is perfect and can do anything, why couldn't he make things happen the way he wants them to without using evil? The answer: he can.

The answer:  he did.  And from the Christian point of view, man mucked it up, not God.  If you're asking why God couldn't create a world where man never chose evil, well, you're getting into a different question altogether, one with a pretty obvious answer.

QuoteBut it's pretty good evidence that there isn't one.

I would agree if it weren't for Jesus of Nazareth.  If we ask the question, “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the whole answer is.  However, we now know what the answer isn’t.  It can’t be that he doesn’t love us.  It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition.  God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on Himself.

QuoteAgain, the "belief" that logic and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful. And since your god doesn't exist, we can't trust him to help with anything.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize that it's a groundless claim with no more reasons to believe it than a belief in God would merit.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

That's a liberal view you have, and I commend you for it, but you hold a fringe position; most believes hold the bible as inerrant, and believe the story of Abraham to be a literal historical event.

One needs to look that the view I hold is no new view, but an ancient one held by the Alexandrian Church, and even before Christianity, by Philo the Jew of Alexandria, who we have received influence from.

http://tertullian.org/fathers/origen_ph ... 2_text.htm (http://tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm)

So, I'm keeping with an Orthodox tradition of the Church

This is not a fringe position within Orthodoxy for we do not hold the Bible to be inerrant.

QuoteBillions of people are in the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), so most of them are followers of Abraham.

And you still believe you're applying logic and reason?  What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

Blah.... Byzantine Empire icon Jesus. You should go with something more accurate like this (http://www.kpao.org/blog/2008/07/08/arabic-jesus.jpg).  

I love the "Sinai" Jesus Icon, it's my favorite picture of him. That "accurate" photo is funny, I've seen it before.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

That's fine, as long as you realize that you're not starting from any more of a "reasonable" place than a theist.

Not all axioms are created equal.

Quote

QuoteWhy shouldn't I?

Because, as you've said before, you demand good reasons to believe something and this worldview is laughably unreasonable.  You have absolutely no grounds to say that you can trust your beliefs and experiences knowing full well that they're "nothing more" than the firing of neurons in the brain.  Unguided, random firings.  I mean, by all means, believe them.  But don't pretend that it's a reasonable position to do so.

I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

Our brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

Also, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Quote

QuoteYeahhhhhhhhhh...whatever you say, buddy.

Nice retort.

Nice retort to my nice retort.

Quote

QuoteGod made us in his image. Why would he not want us to understand the world? Doesn't he want us to use the logic and rationality he gave us?

Sure.  Did I imply otherwise?  Unless of course you think "understanding the world" amounts to no mystery whatsoever and having every single answer.

Why would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

Quote

QuoteAnd Epicurus isn't asking why pointless evil exists, he's asking why evil exists at all. If God is perfect and can do anything, why couldn't he make things happen the way he wants them to without using evil? The answer: he can.

The answer:  he did.  And from the Christian point of view, man mucked it up, not God.  If you're asking why God couldn't create a world where man never chose evil, well, you're getting into a different question altogether, one with a pretty obvious answer.

I feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil? Why does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

Quote

QuoteBut it's pretty good evidence that there isn't one.

I would agree if it weren't for Jesus of Nazareth.  If we ask the question, “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the whole answer is.  However, we now know what the answer isn’t.  It can’t be that he doesn’t love us.  It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition.  God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on Himself.

So, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

Quote

QuoteAgain, the "belief" that logic and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful. And since your god doesn't exist, we can't trust him to help with anything.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize that it's a groundless claim with no more reasons to believe it than a belief in God would merit.

We must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct. We don't have to have belief in God. Again, not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that god exists is baseless and useless.

Quote from: "Achronos"What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

To follow the religions he started.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

You're missing the larger point.  I'm not talking about fact versus fiction, I'm talking about the very fundamentals of how the brain works and the problems that creates for those who hold a materialistic worldview.

QuoteOur brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

What do you mean our brains aren't random?  How else could they be from a purely materialistic viewpoint?  I'm not sure what a magical sky fairy is but it sounds cool.

Your "logic" continues to astound me...

QuoteAlso, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize it's a faith position.  Your faith that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations induced by some unknown outside source; your belief that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all); your belief that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later; your belief that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior); so on and so forth.

These little puddle-jumps of faith are the foundation for your reason. I think they are justified. But that reason is really a belief, an act of faith, an acknowledgment that, as humans, we have no "contingency-free" place from where to start at all and no "contingency-free" place on earth to end up at.

QuoteWhy would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

He wouldn't.  

QuoteI feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil?

Because...that wouldn't be free will.  Are you serious?

QuoteWhy does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

I'm not sure who'd believe such a thing but it sounds atrocious.

QuoteSo, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

I'm afraid the only thing that needs to be pointed out is how someone like yourself can spend this much time on a Religion board, have discussions with me, and still have absolutely no idea what an Orthodox actually believes. Truly, it's impressive!

QuoteWe must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct.

Those neurons of yours must be firing randomly again.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

To follow the religions he started.

This must be that dizzying "logic" of yours at work.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

You're missing the larger point.  I'm not talking about fact versus fiction, I'm talking about the very fundamentals of how the brain works and the problems that creates for those who hold a materialistic worldview.

And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

Quote

QuoteOur brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

What do you mean our brains aren't random?  How else could they be from a purely materialistic viewpoint?

How are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

QuoteI'm not sure what a magical sky fairy is but it sounds cool.

Oh, it is.

QuoteYour "logic" continues to astound me...

Thanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

Quote

QuoteAlso, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize it's a faith position.  Your faith that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations induced by some unknown outside source; your belief that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all); your belief that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later; your belief that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior); so on and so forth.

These little puddle-jumps of faith are the foundation for your reason. I think they are justified. But that reason is really a belief, an act of faith, an acknowledgment that, as humans, we have no "contingency-free" place from where to start at all and no "contingency-free" place on earth to end up at.

I wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

Quote

QuoteWhy would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

He wouldn't.

But yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

Quote

QuoteI feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil?

Because...that wouldn't be free will.  Are you serious?

AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

Quote

QuoteWhy does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

I'm not sure who'd believe such a thing but it sounds atrocious.

Most people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

Quote

QuoteSo, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

I'm afraid the only thing that needs to be pointed out is how someone like yourself can spend this much time on a Religion board, have discussions with me, and still have absolutely no idea what an Orthodox actually believes. Truly, it's impressive!

Do you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

Quote

QuoteWe must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct.

Those neurons of yours must be firing randomly again.

Sandwich is not amused.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sandwich is not amused.

Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sandwich is not amused.

Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

Eh, maybe you're right -- but I think I have to prove something to myself. And about his intelligence: I don't actually think he's stupid. Certainly, I disagree with a lot of his stances and opinions, and I think that his religion has a nasty grip over his brain, but I think that he's probably fairly intelligent. I also don't think that he practices what he preaches -- that this, that he doesn't think.

It's obvious I'm not going to change his mind, but maybe...I don't know. Eh.

He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

Quote from: "Stevil"He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

Illogical logic....

Yeah, he seems keen on reminding us often that he has no individual opinions and that his stance on everything is directly aligned with the standard Orthodox view. He almost seems proud that he has no free will or thoughts.

He's probably already answered this, but I would like to know how he knows that all the Greek Orthodox views are correct.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

And I said that you have no grounds to believe this, which is fine, but don't pretend that it's a logical position to hold.  You keep rambling on and on about how materialistic atheism is somehow a logical and reasonable conclusion, when it is anything but.  Yes, it's an axiom, but that does not excuse it from being a faith position.

QuoteHow are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

Materialism says that life is the product of random, unguided processes.  This would include the neurological structure of the brain, i.e. how the brain works.  If you deny this, then what do you propose in its place?

QuoteThanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

LOL!

QuoteI wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

If it quacks like a duck...

QuoteBut yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

As far as suffering goes, though it’s hard to imagine why God would let it happen, my point was that we can always turn to the cross and see that at least God has become part of it, rather than ignore it. This gives Christians hope that somehow, he is working everything into good, even if we don’t understand it.  If a cathedral is bombed, you can still find hints of its original beauty.  Suffering is a very important concept that needs to be dealt with.  The universe doesn’t show a one-sided, unmitigated picture of how things are, total suffering or total joy, etc., so in and of itself, this is not an argument against God, per se, considering we have positive evidence for God.  But the question is, do we have sufficient evidence to trust God in the midst of a universe that has ragged edges.  And that’s what brings us to the cross.  God has come into our world, and taken part in human suffering, and this gives us enough to trust him.

QuoteAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm not ignoring anything.  You're just not saying anything...

QuoteMost people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

It's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

QuoteDo you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

What on earth are you talking about?

QuoteSandwich is not amused.

Not my job to amuse you.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

And I said that you have no grounds to believe this, which is fine, but don't pretend that it's a logical position to hold.  You keep rambling on and on about how materialistic atheism is somehow a logical and reasonable conclusion, when it is anything but.  Yes, it's an axiom, but that does not excuse it from being a faith position.

Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

Quote

QuoteHow are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

Materialism says that life is the product of random, unguided processes. This would include the neurological structure of the brain, i.e. how the brain works.  If you deny this, then what do you propose in its place?

You mean evolution? That's not random. And even if our brains are a result of random processes, this does not make them random themselves.

Quote

QuoteThanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

LOL!

Yes, the truth can be quite hilarious.

Quote

QuoteI wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

If it quacks like a duck...

Like I said, call them what you will, but they aren't illogical.

Quote

QuoteBut yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

Blah blah blah I have faith blah blah blah considering we have positive evidence for God blah blah blah God is good blah blah blah.

Whoa, wait a second -- positive evidence for God? Care to share some of this "evidence"?

Quote

QuoteAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm not ignoring anything.  You're just not saying anything...

I'm saying that God didn't have to make things the way they are. Why is not having free will bad?

Quote

QuoteMost people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

It's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

Ah, okay.

Quote

QuoteDo you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

What on earth are you talking about?

Why did Jesus have to die, if not to correct original sin?

Quote

QuoteSandwich is not amused.

Not my job to amuse you.

Then what the hell am I paying you for?

...Oh, right. I don't pay you. It's not your job to do anything at this forum.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.  
   
The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.  
   
The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I see what you're saying, and I agree.

One point I really want to make that I haven't seen an atheist make before is that God could make the universe in any way he wanted. They say that suffering is necessary because without it, we wouldn't have free will, and without free will, there is no love. Why is it like this? Because God made it so.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

Which response are you referring to?  Had you presented any sort of reasonable argument in your childish diatribe against what you think Orthodox Christians believe (which I'm still baffled by, considering how much effort I have put to correct you)I could've responded with much less sarcasm.  But alas, such was not the case.

QuoteACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

My faith in Christ is logical and rational, not because it's axiomatic, but because it's the fruit of historical inquiry, philosophy, scientific inquiry and personal experience; i.e. the way everyone comes to conclusions about anything.

QuoteAt this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.

Do you live on a farm?  Because the endless amount of straw you seem to have available for these caricatures of yours is remarkable!

Let me know when you're actually ready and willing to engage serious ideas.

QuoteThe above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I love chess. But truly, how do you expect to converse with someone when you're so unwilling to understand where they're coming from?  I've mentioned it in almost every single post, and you never address it, but seriously, I'm shocked at what you still think Orthodox Christians believe.  Do you realize you've not once provided a response to anything I actually believe? Tell me how this supposed conversation you want to have is supposed to happen under these circumstances?  Because I am obviously willing to engage you and yet you keep these ramblings that have absolutely no bearing on what anything I say.  Forgive me if I find it tiring...

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

Which response are you referring to?  Had you presented any sort of reasonable argument in your childish diatribe against what you think Orthodox Christians believe (which I'm still baffled by, considering how much effort I have put to correct you)I could've responded with much less sarcasm.  But alas, such was not the case.

QuoteACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

My faith in Christ is logical and rational, not because it's axiomatic, but because it's the fruit of historical inquiry, philosophy, scientific inquiry and personal experience; i.e. the way everyone comes to conclusions about anything.

QuoteAt this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.

Do you live on a farm?  Because the endless amount of straw you seem to have available for these caricatures of yours is remarkable!

Let me know when you're actually ready and willing to engage serious ideas.

QuoteThe above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I love chess. But truly, how do you expect to converse with someone when you're so unwilling to understand where they're coming from?  I've mentioned it in almost every single post, and you never address it, but seriously, I'm shocked at what you still think Orthodox Christians believe.  Do you realize you've not once provided a response to anything I actually believe? Tell me how this supposed conversation you want to have is supposed to happen under these circumstances?  Because I am obviously willing to engage you and yet you keep these ramblings that have absolutely no bearing on what anything I say.  Forgive me if I find it tiring...

Once again, you seem so keen on showing that you have no individual thoughts of your own. I guess you don't want the Devil to take over your brain because, you know, that's what will happen if you start to think.

I'm ready to keep going on if you respond to my post.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In large part, I'm actually agreeing with you. We have to start somewhere. My point is that you're in no position to assert that the religious experiences of people aren't something to be trusted. You're in no position to scoff at people for believing in Jesus Christ because they claim to have had a genuine experience of him.

I follow what is known as the Principle of Credulity:  It is rational to accept what experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  We accept what experience tells us in the absence of special reasons not to.

QuoteBlah blah blah I have faith blah blah blah considering we have positive evidence for God blah blah blah God is good blah blah blah.

And you wonder why I find it tiresome interacting with you...

QuoteWhoa, wait a second -- positive evidence for God? Care to share some of this "evidence"?

I did. I forgot the thread, but you'll find my resurrection post which never got "debunked"; bascially I was saying the only logical conclusion we have as of now i that the Ressurection of Christ did occur.

QuoteI'm saying that God didn't have to make things the way they are. Why is not having free will bad?

Because love is not possible without it.

Quote

QuoteIt's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

Ah, okay.

Still waiting for this to be addressed...

QuoteWhy did Jesus have to die, if not to correct original sin?

To defeat death. Orthodox Christians do not believe in the imputation of "original sin."  We are only accountable for our own sins.  But that's beside the point.

Quote from: "Stevil"Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

Quote from: "Stevil"He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

And the caricatures continue...

Quote from: "Achronos"What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In large part, I'm actually agreeing with you. We have to start somewhere. My point is that you're in no position to assert that the religious experiences of people aren't something to be trusted. You're in no position to scoff at people for believing in Jesus Christ because they claim to have had a genuine experience of him.

I follow what is known as the Principle of Credulity:  It is rational to accept what experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  We accept what experience tells us in the absence of special reasons not to.

And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I actually agree with your last paragraph. I think the reason "It's been proven how easy this stuff is to make up and it's batshit crazy" is a good enough reason to distrust them, not to mention the lack of evidence.

QuoteAnd you wonder why I find it tiresome interacting with you...

Same for you, buddy.

QuoteI did. I forgot the thread, but you'll find my resurrection post which never got "debunked"; bascially I was saying the only logical conclusion we have as of now i that the Ressurection of Christ did occur.

Ugh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

QuoteBecause love is not possible without it.

Why? Who made this the way it is?

QuoteStill waiting for this to be addressed...

I acknowledged that I did not know this, and so I withdraw my original argument.

QuoteTo defeat death. Orthodox Christians do not believe in the imputation of "original sin."  We are only accountable for our own sins.  But that's beside the point.

To defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In this case Achronos employed a different full-on attack than the one I suggested he might, but he used the same essential tactic.  When you or I say experiences we mean, "information gleaned from the senses."   In the quote above, Achronos is using the same word, experiences, but he doesn't mean information gleaned from the senses.  He means information gleaned from emotion and intuition.  He may mention logic, but logic needs premises, and religious premises come from emotion and intuition, either one's own or someone else's.  You and I reject out of hand any notion that emotion or intuition provide data, as they can only suggest hypotheses to be tested by the senses - and Achronos knows we reject that notion out of hand because atheists have been telling him that from day one.  What the senses cannot detect isn't knowledge.  This isn't some weird arbitrary stance you and I (and others) take.  Emotion and intuition provide questions, not answers.  I love questions.  You probably do too.  But answers about reality come only from the senses.  Achronos thinks otherwise and therein lies the epistemological divide that can never be bridged.  All we can do is keep lobbing grenades at one another.  Our grenades say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.      

Now sometimes he'll employ a flanking maneuver, and start talking about the history, tradition, and authority of his church, but if we press him hard enough for what these ultimately rest on, he'll answer that they're based on religious experiences, by which he means, emotion and intuition, since he can't possibly mean the senses.  He accepts the history, tradition, and authority of his church because of his own emotional and intuitive experiences, and those of his advisors, and those of a long line of people stretching backwards two thousand years into the past, all of which he considers to be evidence, and none of which you and I consider to be evidence, because none of it is derived from the senses, and only the senses provide evidence.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

So then we say, "Wait a minute, Muslims have religious experiences too!  Why should we believe yours and not theirs?"  He scoffs at this, of course, because, unlike us, he considers emotion and intuition to be sources of answers rather than questions, and, of course, answers can be true or false.  For him, then, it is perfectly appropriate for his emotions and intuitions, his answers, to be true, while a Muslim's emotions and intuitions, a Muslim's answers, are false, and not just a Muslim's, but a Jew's also, and not just theirs, but a Catholic's or Protestant's, even a Catholic's or Protestant's, fellow Christians though they are.  This is ludicrous to you and me, because, where reality is concerned, we deem the senses to be the sole arbiters of what is true and what is false.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

The above three paragraphs summarize pages and pages of going back and forth and round and round.  No resolution is available.  He won't accept the senses as the sole arbiters of truth or falsehood about reality, and we won't accept anything other than that.  The divide remains tall and thick and insurmountable and will remain so forever.

Great breakdown Inevitible Droid

I would be OK with it if it were simply an epistemological divide, however my intuition tells me that although we have been honest and sincere with regards to our discussions, Achronos is using us to practice and perfect his ability to deceive.

He is perfecting this art at the expense of our time spent in dialogue with him. His goal in deception is to create confusion. Confusion is a powerful and dangerous marketing and recruitment tool. I feel this behaviour is dispicable and I am annoyed and I do not like to see Achronos doing it to other members of this forum.

Droid - do you think I am off the mark here?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I accept what a person's experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  Perhaps some examples might help...

Suppose it seems to you that you are looking at a tree.  Your visual experience indicates as much.  Is it rational for you to believe that there is indeed a tree before you?  Under normal circumstances, the answer is yes, of course.  But let's consider two other circumstances.  First, you have been wandering around a desert for days on end, with no water.  You are severely dehydrated.  You have a visual experience that seems to be a refreshing pool of water surrounded by trees.  In this circumstance, you have a good reason to doubt what your visual experience is communicating to you.  You're likely hallucinating.

Second, suppose you see a tree running.  You know trees don't run.  This is absurd.  You have a good reason to believe your visual experience is false.

In the first example, even though you wouldn't question seeing trees and water under normal circumstances, the special circumstances change everything.  In the second example, apart from the circumstances in question, you have a good reason to doubt your visual experience, because you know trees don't run.

The Principle of Credulity tells us, essentially, to give the benefit of the doubt to our experience in the sense of direct awareness.  We accept what our experience tells us when there aren't any good reasons to think otherwise.

When it comes to the religious experience of other people or alien encounters, I'm not willing to make blanket statements so I'd have to look into the details of each case.

QuoteUgh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

That's fine, we don't have to.  You asked me a question and I answered it.  Isn't that how this works?

QuoteI acknowledged that I did not know this, and so I withdraw my original argument.

Fair enough.

QuoteTo defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

Romans 6:9: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

1 Corinthians 15: "20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I accept what a person's experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  Perhaps some examples might help...

Suppose it seems to you that you are looking at a tree.  Your visual experience indicates as much.  Is it rational for you to believe that there is indeed a tree before you?  Under normal circumstances, the answer is yes, of course.  But let's consider two other circumstances.  First, you have been wandering around a desert for days on end, with no water.  You are severely dehydrated.  You have a visual experience that seems to be a refreshing pool of water surrounded by trees.  In this circumstance, you have a good reason to doubt what your visual experience is communicating to you.  You're likely hallucinating.

Second, suppose you see a tree running.  You know trees don't run.  This is absurd.  You have a good reason to believe your visual experience is false.

In the first example, even though you wouldn't question seeing trees and water under normal circumstances, the special circumstances change everything.  In the second example, apart from the circumstances in question, you have a good reason to doubt your visual experience, because you know trees don't run.

The Principle of Credulity tells us, essentially, to give the benefit of the doubt to our experience in the sense of direct awareness.  We accept what our experience tells us when there aren't any good reasons to think otherwise.

When it comes to the religious experience of other people or alien encounters, I'm not willing to make blanket statements so I'd have to look into the details of each case.

That is all good, and I agree. The problem is, religious experiences aren't just limited to your religion alone; in fact, they're not just limited to religion, but to a whole wide range of crazy things I assume you don't believe. I choose to remain skeptical regarding these types of experiences.

Quote

QuoteUgh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

That's fine, we don't have to.  You asked me a question and I answered it.  Isn't that how this works?

Yes, although I don't accept it.

Quote

QuoteTo defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

Romans 6:9: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

1 Corinthians 15: "20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Throwing some scripture at me doesn't help. Pretend I'm a member of your Bible study or something. What does that mean?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"In this case Achronos employed a different full-on attack than the one I suggested he might, but he used the same essential tactic.  When you or I say experiences we mean, "information gleaned from the senses."   In the quote above, Achronos is using the same word, experiences, but he doesn't mean information gleaned from the senses.  He means information gleaned from emotion and intuition.

I mean your definition, actually.  Perhaps emotion and intuition can play important roles at times, but that's not what I'm talking about.

QuoteHe may mention logic, but logic needs premises, and religious premises come from emotion and intuition, either one's own or someone else's.  You and I reject out of hand any notion that emotion or intuition provide data, as they can only suggest hypotheses to be tested by the senses - and Achronos knows we reject that notion out of hand because atheists have been telling him that from day one.

Good, we're on the same page then.

QuoteWhat the senses cannot detect isn't knowledge.  This isn't some weird arbitrary stance you and I (and others) take.  Emotion and intuition provide questions, not answers.  I love questions.  You probably do too.  But answers about reality come only from the senses.  Achronos thinks otherwise and therein lies the epistemological divide that can never be bridged.  All we can do is keep lobbing grenades at one another.  Our grenades say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

I'm not sure what I said that indicated emotion and intuition was what I meant, but I assure you, it wasn't.

QuoteNow sometimes he'll employ a flanking maneuver, and start talking about the history, tradition, and authority of his church, but if we press him hard enough for what these ultimately rest on, he'll answer that they're based on religious experiences, by which he means, emotion and intuition, since he can't possibly mean the senses.

Actually, when you press me I write a lengthy summation to which you reply (or lackof), "I got nothing, I agree..." and then say, "Ugh, I don't want to talk about that."  I'm not really sure what you want...

QuoteHe accepts the history, tradition, and authority of his church because of his own emotional and intuitive experiences,

I'm not quite sure what that would look like, but again, it's quite simply not the case.

Quoteand those of his advisors, and those of a long line of people stretching backwards two thousand years into the past, all of which he considers to be evidence, and none of which you and I consider to be evidence, because none of it is derived from the senses, and only the senses provide evidence.

I don't fully agree with you here about sense perception (surprise!) but the only thing I've provided as evidence is history, philosophy, science and personal experience.

QuoteSo then we say, "Wait a minute, Muslims have religious experiences too!  Why should we believe yours and not theirs?"

You shouldn't believe anyone's.  You should believe your own.  The invitation of Orthodoxy is to come and see for yourself.  Don't rely on my experience or anyone else's if you don't want to.

QuoteHe scoffs at this,

I'm having trouble remembering when and where I did this.  Care to provide a quote?

Quotebecause, unlike us, he considers emotion and intuition to be sources of answers rather than questions, and, of course, answers can be true or false.  For him, then, it is perfectly appropriate for his emotions and intuitions, his answers, to be true, while a Muslim's emotions and intuitions, a Muslim's answers, are false, and not just a Muslim's, but a Jew's also, and not just theirs, but a Catholic's or Protestant's, even a Catholic's or Protestant's, fellow Christians though they are.  This is ludicrous to you and me, because, where reality is concerned, we deem the senses to be the sole arbiters of what is true and what is false.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

The above three paragraphs summarize pages and pages of going back and forth and round and round.  No resolution is available.  He won't accept the senses as the sole arbiters of truth or falsehood about reality, and we won't accept anything other than that.  The divide remains tall and thick and insurmountable and will remain so forever.

Well, at least we now know why we've been talking past each other!  And, much to everyone's surprise, the answer is yet again your inability to understand what anyone is really saying.  At what point, anywhere on this message board, did I ever say anything about a Muslim or Jewish, Catholic or Protestant person's religious experience?  When did I ever tell you that by experience I meant "emotion and intuition"?  The divide remains tall and thick because your cherished "debunk thinking" all deal with a Christianity that Orthodox Christians do not adhere to, and you don't know how to grapple with anything I've put forward on your own, so you have nothing left to do but continue down the path of assuming you know what I believe and we end up talking in circles.

Quote from: "Achronos"You shouldn't believe anyone's.  You should believe your own.  The invitation of Orthodoxy is to come and see for yourself.  Don't rely on my experience or anyone else's if you don't want to.

I've been a sincere Christian most of my life, and I can honestly say I haven't found God. Even when I believed in that shit I never felt like prayer worked, or I could feel God, or anything like that. I wasn't a Greek Orthodox, so maybe that's the problem according to you, but I don't really feel like trying all the different denominations when I've researched it and safely say with reasonable certainty that Christianity is a bunch of bullshit.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That is all good, and I agree. The problem is, religious experiences aren't just limited to your religion alone; in fact, they're not just limited to religion, but to a whole wide range of crazy things I assume you don't believe. I choose to remain skeptical regarding these types of experiences.

That's fine, I'm not offering these as proofs of anything.  My point this whole time has been that those of us who have had such experiences are logically and reasonably justified in our "religious faith" because it is based on an experience that has every bit as much validity as anything else we experience in life.  The Principle of Credulity holds up here.

QuoteThrowing some scripture at me doesn't help. Pretend I'm a member of your Bible study or something. What does that mean?

It means that death is the ultimate enemy of mankind.  Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, death is intimately related to sin and in that sense, Jesus' death was "for our sins," but this shouldn't be mistaken for the common judiciary view that Jesus was punished on account of our guilty status due to Adam's "original sin."  Orthodox do not believe this.  The Orthodox view is that man was meant for union with God and Jesus' Incarnation was not "Plan B" but was "Plan A" in the sense that God had always intended to take creation upon himself in order for real union with humans to occur.  Death is the great enemy of this plan, so Jesus had to die in order to defeat death.  Much like he had to take on life in order to unite mankind to himself, he had to take on death in order to free us from it.  Eternal life is the goal and death stands in the way of that.  Death must be conquered.  That happened in the Resurrection.

I know you don't believe any of this, but hopefully this sheds at least a little light on what Orthodox mean when they say "Jesus died for our sins" or otherwise talk about why he "had" to die.  Because it's definitely not for the reasons most like to think it is.

Quote from: "Achronos"That's fine, I'm not offering these as proofs of anything.  My point this whole time has been that those of us who have had such experiences are logically and reasonably justified in our "religious faith" because it is based on an experience that has every bit as much validity as anything else we experience in life.  The Principle of Credulity holds up here.

First, let's deal with The Principle of Credulity which states:
If it seems that x is present, then x is probably present. In other words, it is reasonable to believe the world is probably as we experience it to be. Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God. How very subjective and full of bullocks. The PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

As far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

Prima facie

Quote from: "Wiki"It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

PoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience. I tend to think the the supposition that those having religious experiences are not really having an experience of the divine but are merely experiencing the world religiously. Philosopher John Hick thought this way as well.

Those who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing. If it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias? If that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination? How does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

The deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Is there a named fallacy regarding applying logical fallacies to a position which is pointedly not offered as a proof and limited in scope to the person holding the position himself?

Quote from: "Gawen"It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Um wait a minute, what exactly is a committed atheist?

That seems contradictory, how can one be committed to the non existence of a non existent "being"? Surely you must mean something other than that.

Second, what does one mean buy the phrase "experience the world religiously?" How do you know atheists dont? Christopher Hitchens seems to disagree with you whole heartedly, though he uses the phrase "numinous" as opposed to "religious". There are atheists who go to Church because the "myth" (as they see it) speaks to them, helps give them "meaning", encourages them even though they don't believe any of the "myths".

Don't believe me, there is a brand new book out about the subject:

http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept (http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept)

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Gawen"It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Um wait a minute, what exactly is a committed atheist?

That seems contradictory, how can one be committed to the non existence of a non existent "being"? Surely you must mean something other than that.

He probably means one who feels pretty damn sure that there is no God.

QuoteSecond, what does one mean buy the phrase "experience the world religiously?" How do you know atheists dont? Christopher Hitchens seems to disagree with you whole heartedly, though he uses the phrase "numinous" as opposed to "religious". There are atheists who go to Church because the "myth" (as they see it) speaks to them, helps give them "meaning", encourages them even though they don't believe any of the "myths".

Nonreligious people can't experience the world religiously, but they can experience it spiritually. There's a difference.

QuoteDon't believe me, there is a brand new book out about the subject:

http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept (http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept)

I've seen that before. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but whatever floats their boat.

Quote from: "Gawen"Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God.[/i] How very subjective and full of bullocks.

I never said it wasn't subjective.  Re-read me earlier post where I made it quite clear that I'm not using this as a proof for anything.  It's merely to show that the person with a religious experience is as justified in trusting that experience as they are in trusting any other experience they have.

QuoteThe PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

I don't doubt that.  Did I imply otherwise?

QuoteAs far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

It only fails if one assumes the person using this line of reasoning is doing so as a proof of God's existence or as a reason for why someone else should believe.  That is not, as I've stated, my purpose.  It is merely to demonstrate that trusting our religious experiences under the Principle of Credulity is as logical and reasonable a thing to do as trusting any other experience we have in life when there is no reason to think otherwise.

QuotePrima facie

Quote from: "Wiki"It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

Agreed.

QuotePoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience.

Which is precisely why I have not used it for this purpose at all.  I'm not sure why you think I did...

QuoteThose who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing.

Quite easy to do within Orthodoxy.

QuoteIf it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias?

How do we know this about anything?!  This is precisely my point!  There is no way to prove to anyone anything that is experienced by the senses.  There is no way for you to prove to me that you are not a brain in a vat being fed sensory experiences.  Which is why we have no other option besides trusting our experiences when there is no good reason not to.

QuoteIf that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination?

Because the person was not experimenting with any drugs and was not utilizing their imagination at the time.  Take these (real) experiences as examples:

“Then, just as I was exhausted and despairingâ€"I had the most wonderful sense of the presence of God.  He was in a particular place in the room about five feet from meâ€"I didn’t look up, but kept my head in my hands and my eyes shut.”

“I was walking along a long, lonely country road by myself…then the experience came.  It lasted about 20 minutesâ€"I sensed a presence on my right, keeping level with me as I went along. “

“Then, in a very gentle and gradual way, not with a shock at all, it began to dawn on me that I was not alone in the room.  Someone else was there, located fairly precisely about two yards to my right front.  Yet there was no sort of sensory hallucination.  I neither saw him nor heard him in any sense of the word “see” and “hear,” but there he was; I had no doubt about it.”

Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.  What we have here, contrary to what you implied earlier, is not a mere outpouring of emotion, but fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.

I’m not saying this is proof of anything or that you should believe in God based upon the supposed experiences of others.  I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).  

QuoteHow does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

How does one not know this about the computer in front of them?  The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

QuoteThe deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

Oh is that why?  I was curious.

QuoteIt is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Going back to this quote again..."Ask and ye shall receive.  Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

Quote from: "Achronos"(1) ...was not utilizing their imagination at the time
(2) ...fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.
(3) I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  
(4) The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

(1) ROFL
(2) the clarity within the examples are of amazing detail "sense of the presence of God", "I sensed a presence", "Someone else was there".
Certainly there were no assumptions being made by the person having the experience.
(3) all assumptions were justified of course.
(4) I generally find if someone else has read the same book as me and we talk about the details contained within it then it becomes apparent that we have read the same book.
WTF!

Good grief Acronos.
Credulity: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.  But you on the other hand...have redefined the definition of 'credulity'.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived and disbelieve me in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it. But because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

When Legendarysandwich has an experience that he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of his nostrils, you say:

QuoteI’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

Quote from: "Gawen"Good grief Acronos.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived and disbelieve me in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it.

On the contrary, this is what you would do.  My logic works the other way around.  See, I'm not trying to invalidate someone else's experiences (under the reasonable Principle of Credulity) whereas you are.  I'm saying that, under completely normal circumstances, we are all justified in trusting our experiences if there is nothing to make that unreasonable.

QuoteBut because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

You have this backwards...

QuoteWhen Legendarysandwich has an experience that he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of his nostrils, you say:

QuoteI’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read some of what I wrote earlier in regards to the Principle of Credulity.  Because if you read it, and think that I implied in any way whatsoever that it would be reasonable for LegendarySandwich to believe he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out his nose, I'm really not sure how much longer I can do this.

I've said the same thing a billion times now and I don't know how else to help you see what you're clearly not seeing.

I understand what you're saying, Achronos. I just don't agree with it.

Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Quote from: "Achronos"Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods (althgouh have studied see below).  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

Then your knowledge base on these unexplored religions is zero and you cannot make an intelligent statement about them. How do you know that one of these religions you have not expored is the correct one and the religion you experience now is brought to you via courtesy the devil?

 

QuoteFirst: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology.

Quote"Apocalyptic" can mean: etc., etc., etc.

You have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

QuoteNow, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  

What I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

QuoteAtheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely,...

Non sequitor.

Quote...it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.

When one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

QuoteAt any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Yes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

QuoteNow, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary .

Quote(Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

I'll agree with that.

QuoteYou can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

Not quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I have discussed this on this board elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

QuoteI accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.

That is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

QuoteI can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

Only from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I understand what you're saying, Achronos. I just don't agree with it.

Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Yeah, what LS said.

The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'. When looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me")/. Unless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

But could it be that you are being deceived by an evil spirit (or another god) and being led astray? No, you are still be presuming your encounter to be from a bad/evil source. Unless one presupposes that good things come from a good 'spiritual' source there is no way of knowing. Even subsequent 'evidence' or rather cause and effect may be or may become corrupted. Christians (and many other believers) will argue that their experience concurs with the testimony of their Scripture. They can't all be having a real experience of their God. This also takes us back to religious experience is colored by one's culture and tradition and therefore human centered.

Because one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists. Just because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology). You need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that. Verification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences, to those that have religious experiences outside your culture and/or tradition and many times by the person having a religious experience. And all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

Quote from: "Gawen"Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology

I have no need to redefine words, I stand on their classical definitions.  It's the modern atheist who has tried to frame these words in a near Orwellian manner so that they mean absolutely nothing other than "Christian fallacies".

QuoteYou have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

I would be well within the realm of Patristic thought if I took you back to my original definition of Apocalyptic: The apocalypse happens everyday in everyone's world.  Indeed, the end of St John's world (you don't shock me when you say Revelation was written AFTER the destruction of the second temple, the Church has maintained such since the beginning.  You might scare a 19th century dispensationalist, perhaps), or the end of many a Jew's world who happened to live in or around Jerusalem in AD 70.  Let's talk about the different worlds whose end started with the destruction of the Jewish temple: the old pagan polytheistic structure, the Pax Romana, the Old Roman Empire itself.  The Jewish Apocalyptic tradition doesn't prophesy the end of all life, it prophesies the end of life as we know it, the current age.  Daniel prophesies the downfall of the Babylonian Empire and it's take over by Persia, the end of the Persian Empire and it's take over by the Greek, and the end of the Greek Empire and it's take over by Rome.  Revelation prophecies the destruction of Rome and the existence of a thousand year Christian Empire.  Let's see Rome fell in AD 470 and Constantinople lasted... 1000 years.  

QuoteWhat I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

And it was.  The Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  That generation had indeed not passed away.

QuoteNon sequitor.

Not at all.  The mindset hasn't changed, even with a supposedly rational frame of reference.  If anything people are more frightened at the end of the world than ever.

QuoteWhen one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

If and when you can be offered a plate of gourmet food and realize it for the feast it is, without saying it is all grass and protein strands you will be halfway there.  But that's not the point.  The point was...

QuoteYes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

Oh, look, you shot right past the point and continued on your "Supernaturalism is silly" merry-go-round.  Point there, point gone again, point there, point gone again.  When the world finally does meet it's end, however that might be, it's not going to matter if it was God's hand that hurled the asteroid or just a hurtling bullet set into place by physics after the big bang that took 4 billion years to meet it's target.  World gone, poof, bye bye mankind.  The point is: it's no more or less silly to believe the world is going to end at any moment, when in fact it is a very likely that it could end at any moment.  You might think the Egyptians silly for believing a god caused the Nile to flood every year but there was nothing silly about the Egyptians planning their crops around that event.

QuoteNot quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I have discussed this on this board elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

Who said anything about "abject"?  *rereads his statement*  Nope, nothing about "abject" up there.  The word "irrational" appears up there, and the definition is "an irrational abject frame of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition".  If the point of the argument is whether or not belief in God is rational or irrational, then the word "Superstitious" applied to a belief in God is meaningless, it considers your side of the argument already proved, which it is not.

QuoteThat is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

So you assert, but you don't prove.

QuoteOnly from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

I would actually agree with a Southern Baptist on many points.  The only areas of which they would accuse me of superstition is in the usage of icons and prayers to saints.  I go easy on them, they haven't read enough and don't drink, no wonder their minds don't think clearly.

All I can say any further is:

Quote from: "Achronos"So you assert, but you don't prove.

As do you.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Neither would I.  I'm not speaking of hearing voices in one's head (or outside one's head for that matter).

Quote from: "Gawen"The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'.

Would you expect it to be otherwise?  We aren't talking about pillars of fire here.

QuoteWhen looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me")/.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  They aren't presuming the experience they're having, they're just describing it.  It's not a neutral experience to which they're ascribing their own meaning.

You've made it clear how poorly you understand Orthodoxy, but if you were familiar with our spiritual tradition you'd find that our experience of Christ is remarkably consistent.

QuoteUnless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on (obviously not personal experience!) but this isn't true.  At any rate, the experience is much, much more than a feeling of goodwill.

QuoteBecause one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists.

Alas!  We are finally on the same page!  I have said this from the beginning.  My sole point this entire time has been that a materialist has no grounds with which they can deny the experience of another human being.

And this is what it all boils down to.  Because I do not think there is airtight proof for God.  I believe there is enough, however, to allow a reasonable and logical person to open themselves up to the possibility of God.  And there are literally billions of people throughout history that have done this very thing and have had experiences that they cannot deny.

Now, before you jump all over that and say it means nothing, please remember that I'm not using this as proof or evidence of God. I'm merely pointing out that we are all in the same boat as far as our sensory experience is concerned, and that the materialist has no legitimate grounds to scoff at those who believe because of their own experiences.

I hope you're beginning to see the difference because you keep addressing these as if I were offering them as reasons for someone to believe in God, which I'm not.

QuoteJust because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology).

Agreed.

QuoteYou need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that.

Depends on what you mean by "feeling" because you yourself said all we can ever really know is what we experience with our senses.  Are you saying you need something more than "feelings" (our sensory experience) for verification of something?  If so, you're in serious trouble!

QuoteVerification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences,

I've said this all along.  My personal experience is no reason for you or anyone else to believe.  It's a way for me to explain why I believe and why you have no grounds on which to deny me those reasons, since all one can do is evaluate their experiences in accordance with reason and logic (for the most part).

QuoteAnd all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

Accept for those multitude of times where the imagination wasn't being utilized and drugs had not been taken.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Neither would I.  I'm not speaking of hearing voices in one's head (or outside one's head for that matter).

With zero feedback is it still.... a relationship?

human experience is a pretty unreliable thing, as are the senses as far as proving anything. That's why eyewitness testimony is mostly disregarded in science without other evidence to back it up.

Since all of the arguments for the existence of a deity that aren't directly refuted by science rely on individual experiences they can and should be rejected out of hand for the same reason we reject claims of UFO abduction without evidence.

When you exit the freeway and get on city streets for a bit it feels like you're going much slower than you really are. Does this mean that you've managed to slow time down?