The atheist thread

[Fake Boris]

Of course it does. You can't have necessity without randomness, quantity without singles, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Of course it does. You can't have necessity without randomness, quantity without singles, etc.

What?

[Kuciwalker]

You're making no sense, OB. Mathematics would be exactly the same even if the universe were a game of Chinese Checkers.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


There's the same small probability that an imperfect being that punishes Christians exists. And there's no reason to assume that a "perfect" (whatever that means) being would resemble the Christian God in any way.

Don't nitpick, I said in the next paragraph that you could certainly find other flaws than those he pointed out.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're making no sense, OB. Mathematics would be exactly the same even if the universe were a game of Chinese Checkers.

Like yeah, the world is quantifiable, and woosh ! we've got an ideal, eternal quantificating model that just happened to be sitting there.

[Kuciwalker]

You still don't make any sense.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sandman
How is Bertand Russell close-minded? But don't reply if you're just going to hurl insults.

I tried "Why I am not a Christian" once. I got disgusted and tossed it away. He makes the classical error of "Religious people committed atrocities, therefore religion causes atrocities." Granted, he wrote it before WWII, but the French Revolution or even colonial excess is proof enough that any ideology will do as an excuse. He tries to cover that base later by claiming that all ideologies with strong followings (such as Stalinism) are "religions." Succeeding by redefining the terms of the argument is not a victory.

Really, though, I consider all utopians close-minded, and he was definitely utopian with his fantasies of an age of reason governed by logic and whatnot. Utopian is probably not the right word; I mean people who believe "if only OUR sort were in charge, all problems would vanish because WE are superior to THEM." As though a simple change of opinions could change human nature! (Before someone objects: I believe in the divine transformation of human nature, not just covering it up by begging Jesus to let sin slide. Changing your opinion is just the beginning.) I disagree with both Democrats and Republicans for the same reason. I much prefer skeptics like Voltaire, who had the sense to see that human sorrow comes to pass because human beings are crazy, none excepted.

I'm not sure what you consider hurling insults. Hopefully that wasn't it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Wasn't saying they're right because they're clever, was responding to Elok's regret of not being enough intellectuals defending religion.

Oh, I see. I didn't mean philosophy profs talking abstractly; I'm sorry, but few people really listen to philosophers these days. It's very difficult to tell what you're talking about most of the time, honestly. And of course, most of your remarks are directed towards other academics.

All I meant was that we need more C.S. Lewises and less Jerry Falwells. This "science was invented by Satan, reason is just a stumbling block" crap has got to go. It's just enabling people like Dawkins, bastardizing the faith, and driving people away. Not to mention raising a whole generation of Christians to be ignorant and loading us down with STDs. Then on the other extreme you have syncretist loonballs who think religion can be reduced to a set of platitudes and fuzzy feelings.

The Jews appear to still be thinking about their religion in a meaningful way, much as it annoys me when LOTM insists on sharing the opinions of fourteenth-century Goldbergs on chocolate chip cookies/fashion/Canadian politics/absolutely anything we talk about ever. Whereas traditional Christian discourse has apparently fallen by the wayside for the most part. Lots of zealots and hippies, not much in between except when the Pope takes time out from singing Every Sperm is Sacred. It's sad.

[Arcite]

Hi,

Why single out Christianity? Every religion is like that. Even tribal religions in the Amazon or deep in the Congo suffer from politics.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You still don't make any sense.

See - you believe in eternity !

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Go easy, please, PH. It's strident atheists like yourself that leaves those of us unbelievers in the moderate majority open to attack.

Elok - yes, I especially dread having to ignore posts full of verbal constipation such as "ontological" and "poststructural".

I'm not strident, I just tell it like it is. A lot of effort goes into defending something concocted of the human mind, for example, we know the origins of Christianity and that branch of religion yet people agonise over its origins and deeper complexities. Of course it is complex and ambiguous because it is an ill-conceived concept.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Wasn't saying they're right because they're clever, was responding to Elok's regret of not being enough intellectuals defending religion.

Unfortunately vulnerability to indoctrination seems to be universal across the board. See above post, it is amazing the length people will go to to justify their preconceived notions of reality.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Most atheists don't bother with reading philosophical texts on God, or medieval wisdom on monastic life, etc.

That's why most of their arguments are just the kind of crap that 12-year olds ask when they're old enough to understand that litteral interpretation of sacred texts obviously doesn't work, but are yet too ignorant of culture to try to seek answers beyond common discourse.

I'm probably not a believer per se, but I reckon that St. Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, (and plenty others) are much more intelligent than your typical 'if God created the world then who created God ?' folks.

Is KrazyHorse making you feel impotent in your level of arrogance exhibited in this statement?

Again, refer to my above post. But let us be perfectly honest here, assuming the existence of a God and working towards an feasible model for reality is completely unscientific. If you are intellectually honest and looking for a model of reality and stumble across God on the way, then so be it.

And also, St. Augustine, Aquinas and Spinoza are equipped with far, far less knowledge of the world than we are nowadays. No matter how gifted they are if they don't have the full evidence there, how can we assume that their answers are correct? Methinks your idolatry of these minds is swaying your judgement - you have exhibited this in a previous post.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Elok


Ah, the 'annoy him with a strawman' tactic. I wouldn't advise it. OB is likely to reply with a barrage of terms like "ontological" and "poststructural" and such. And OB, I wasn't objecting to philosophers, they're relatively open-minded in my experience. With the exception of Bertrand Russell, et cetera...

Again, refer to my above post. He assumes that these people he has learned about in the past are infallible, or somehow endowed with a wisdom far greater than that possible in the modern era.

[Kuciwalker]

No he doesn't.