Obviously we are not all Godless here

[corbyco]

religion, in particular Christianity in this case, has been, and still is the motivation for the murder and subjugation of millions. Like I said in an earlier post, people do evil things because they are convinced they are fighting evil, thanks to religion and the state.

"Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?" Really?  People, with the exceptions of psychopaths, are good because they naturally want to be.  Is God the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping and stealing?  

 

You can say that the mafia does good things, 'protects' people and supports its favorite charity or whatever, and choose to ignore that they kill people and shake them down, but if you are supporting and advocating for their ways by association, then your claim of being virtuous is not to be taken seriously.  If you want to be virtuous, then you must distance yourself from people who are willing to use scripture (Old Testament, Revelation) to justify the horrors that are associated with it.  

 

seems to me that you lack intellectual and moral integrity by arguing these positions. 

If we look at history there have been wars in the name of Christianity - although not following the words of Christ so it seems not fair to blame Christs teachings for those wars.  Also there have been abuses but again that is not what Christ taught - and infact the opposite of what he taught.

 

There have been far, far more deaths through communism and general statism which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

Today there are almost no deaths even in the name of Christianity.  Its about energy and islamic extremism.

 

Do we say that anarchism cannot be right and true because of the hundreds of thousands of 'anarchists' who loot, burn and murder?

No, because we have intellectual integrity and exclude those who actually do not follow what we define as anarchism.

[shirgall]

I'm not sure we can discard 2000 years of Christian sectarian violence so easily.

 

As for today, how about the administration claiming that ISIS was executing Christians as a excuse for bombing, when the facts were that ISIS was executing far more of people from different Muslim sects?

 

How about the neocons constantly harping on the 700 Club for war? Why don't they count?

[powder]

If we look at history there have been wars in the name of Christianity - although not following the words of Christ so it seems not fair to blame Christs teachings for those wars.  Also there have been abuses but again that is not what Christ taught - and infact the opposite of what he taught.

 

There have been far, far more deaths through communism and general statism which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

Today there are almost no deaths even in the name of Christianity.  Its about energy and islamic extremism.

 

Do we say that anarchism cannot be right and true because of the hundreds of thousands of 'anarchists' who loot, burn and murder?

No, because we have intellectual integrity and exclude those who actually do not follow what we define as anarchism.

sorry, you are not addressing what I am saying.  No one is blaming Christ's teachings (revelation notwithstanding) but he is guilty by association and so are you.  some of us may be aware of hidden motives behind the violence in the middle east but you cannot deny that the 'Christian right' makes it possible for the military industrial complex to engage in this stuff because their support and sanction of it is based on biblical teaching - so yes we can blame Christianity.  

 

you can define Christianity any way you like and ignore all those who call themselves Christians and cheer on the mayhem in the middle east but you are still complicit by association.  and you did not answer my question about the book of revelation and Jesus' second coming.  

[PatrickC]

This is for the audience, rather than the protagonists in this thread.. corbyco is cherry picking the questions he answers. He has been busy cherry picking from the low hanging fruit. This doesn't surprise me, as my (Christian) Father did very much the same.

 

I would suggest rather than wasting your time, you either hand him his ass on a plate or ignore him. Sorry to be combative, but since corbyco never responded to any of my own reasonable responses or others in this thread, he clearly has no intention in understanding 'philosophy'.

[powder]

This is for the audience, rather than the protagonists in this thread.. corbyco is cherry picking the questions he answers. He has been busy cherry picking from the low hanging fruit. This doesn't surprise me, as my (Christian) Father did very much the same.

 

I would suggest rather than wasting your time, you either hand him his ass on a plate or ignore him. Sorry to be combative, but since corbyco never responded to any of my own reasonable responses or others in this thread, he clearly has no intention in understanding 'philosophy'.

Well said, I totally agree Patrick.  I am not engaging him for his benefit.  

[shirgall]

I would suggest rather than wasting your time, you either hand him his ass on a plate or ignore him. Sorry to be combative, but since corbyco never responded to any of my own reasonable responses or others in this thread, he clearly has no intention in understanding 'philosophy'.

 

You are offering good advice, especially since I should be focused on my job search right now.

 

The apparent argument of all religionists is "believe in things that cannot proven and act accordingly" which I interpret as a call to violence against logic and empiricism. I've even heard certain religious people call logic "dogma" which really riles me up.

[Jibninjas]

@corbyco: Hi there. What is it you hope to gain from this forum? You mention a lack of integrity but provide no frame of reference. You mention a lack of respect with regards to Christianity as if respect is automatic and not earned. Later on, you mention corrupt "scientists" as if that invalidates the objective scientific method. These things seem like an effort to marginalize scrutiny, otherwise known as bias confirmation. You cannot find the truth without scrutiny. This is important because I sometimes see people describing their ideas being scrutinized as personal attacks which simply isn't the case.

 

Since you mentioned lack of integrity as cause for concern, I wanted to point out that "incredible experiences that I can only label as spiritual" lacks integrity. What incredible experiences? What does spiritual mean? Perhaps this is my bias, but I read this as, "I cannot explain it, therefore the explanation must be supernatural." THIS would be a corruption of the scientific method. As is believing something just because some dead guy said it. Like Einstein was a pretty smart dude. All the same, if he ever stated that 2+2=5, he'd be wrong. Just as if he stated 2+2=4, it's true because it's true, not because he said it.

 

Out of curiosity, if you were raised atheist, how did you come to describe yourself as a Christian? I know you said your read the Bible beginning to end, but one would expect this to discourage faith, not invoke it.

 

@Shane: You forgot the, "Oh and if you don't obey, I'm going to torture you with fire for all eternity," part. Guessing the right answer isn't the same as arriving at the correct answer by way of sound methodology. Not stealing from, assaulting, raping, and murdering other people is moral because it's logically consistent. Not because somebody specific is credited with saying it.

 

I am new to this forum and just wanted to chime in here.  I mostly wanted to respond to your response to the OPs claim of lack of respect.  I have been looking through this section of the site and have noticed the same thing that the OP states, which is a lack of respect.  Now I might mean it in a different way though.  I don't care about people calling people names or some such nonsense, but the respect of actually following the current philosophical debate around the existence of God.

 

What I have found is the atheists here don't seem to understand or even be aware of any of the current positions of religious philosophers.  Nor do they seem to know they current (or actually very old) responses to atheists points.  For example, the sort of reasoning that I see here is "God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it, therefore god cannot be omnipotent, therefore god does not exist."  This line of reasoning was shown to be invalid decades ago!  

 

I came to this forum because I like Stefan and found much of his logic to be sound.  I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that those who came to his site would be of a higher intellectual level.  What I have found is people championing arguments that were shown to be wrong before most of them were probably born.  Arguing against the type of reasoning of a 12 year old average church goer does not make you intelligent.  

 

I used to post on a board that was mostly atheists.  And if an atheist said something like "there is a mountain of evidence that god does not exist", a majority of the atheists there would jump down that posters throat about what an absurd statement that is to make and how he is making the rest of them look bad.  But here I see that statements like that is par for the course.  Hopefully someone can show me where I am wrong as I always enjoy a good intellectual discussion about the existence of god.

[powder]

I am new to this forum and just wanted to chime in here.  I mostly wanted to respond to your response to the OPs claim of lack of respect.  I have been looking through this section of the site and have noticed the same thing that the OP states, which is a lack of respect.  Now I might mean it in a different way though.  I don't care about people calling people names or some such nonsense, but the respect of actually following the current philosophical debate around the existence of God.

 

What I have found is the atheists here don't seem to understand or even be aware of any of the current positions of religious philosophers.  Nor do they seem to know they current (or actually very old) responses to atheists points.  For example, the sort of reasoning that I see here is "God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it, therefore god cannot be omnipotent, therefore god does not exist."  This line of reasoning was shown to be invalid decades ago!  

 

I came to this forum because I like Stefan and found much of his logic to be sound.  I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that those who came to his site would be of a higher intellectual level.  What I have found is people championing arguments that were shown to be wrong before most of them were probably born.  Arguing against the type of reasoning of a 12 year old average church goer does not make you intelligent.  

 

I used to post on a board that was mostly atheists.  And if an atheist said something like "there is a mountain of evidence that god does not exist", a majority of the atheists there would jump down that posters throat about what an absurd statement that is to make and how he is making the rest of them look bad.  But here I see that statements like that is par for the course.  Hopefully someone can show me where I am wrong as I always enjoy a good intellectual discussion about the existence of god.

welcome to the forum jibningas.  

 

Have you read the whole thread?  If you want to argue for the existence of something you must provide evidence, and as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

 

Also, making personal attacks about the level of intellectual discourse you observe without pointing them out and explaining why they are erroneous and saying things like "this line of reasoning was shown to be invalid...  shown to to wrong" and the like without actually showing how that is so,... well, I think you know that lacks intellectual integrity.  

 

you're off to a good start I think.   

[Jibninjas]

welcome to the forum jibningas.  

 

Have you read the whole thread?  If you want to argue for the existence of something you must provide evidence, and as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

 

Also, making personal attacks about the level of intellectual discourse you observe without pointing them out and explaining why they are erroneous and saying things like "this line of reasoning was shown to be invalid...  shown to to wrong" and the like without actually showing how that is so,... well, I think you know that lacks intellectual integrity.  

 

you're off to a good start I think.  

 

Thank you Powder, and happy to be here.

 

First, I was speaking pretty broadly and was not trying to make any arguments in that post.  As far as evidence, I think there is plenty (obviously as I am a theist).  Reality is imo the biggest piece of evidence.  There are plenty of arguments out there like the teleological argument, arguments from design, argument from reason, etc.  These are some of the arguments that exist currently.  These are not the arguments that seem to be discussed here.  You say, or more famously said by Sagan, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I would agree, and this would apply to atheists as well.  Or at least to strong atheists.  The claim that everything exists as it exists as a matter of brute fact is quite the claim.  I am a theists because when you drill down, everything in reality either exists because of a creator or exists as a brute fact (it exists because it exists).  I find that the creator explanation is more parsimonious as well as having more explanatory power.  And you should have stepped in and rebuked the posts that have made the claim that no gods exist with the same attitude as you did me.

 

I was not meaning attack anyone personally, but the level of discussion.  Also, I did explain in decent detail in another thread on of the reasons why a specific argument was wrong.  No one has yet to respond.  Also, I couldn't possibly respond to every argument made here in that post, so saying that without doing so lacks intellectual integrity is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

Most of all I was just disappointed.  When I saw there was a atheist/theism section here I got excited as I was sure there would be high class intellectual discussion here.  I would love to be proved wrong, and to be fair have only glanced through the threads.  So overall this could be exactly what I was hoping it to be, but I wanted to share my agreement with regard to the respect given to the theistic position.

[powder]

No I don't think I was being disingenuous.  You were the one saying the derogatory things without backing them up and now you are claiming that you doing so would be too much for you to handle.  

 

nevertheless, like I said in previous posts I have been studying religion, spiritual traditions and their history for years but I will not be the one to engage you in an intellectual debate regarding the existence of god.  I have no interest in that topic.  I am interested in virtue and morality and religion fails that test, and that is easy to prove.  

 

I'll take a peak at the other thread you mention though.  

[dsayers]

As far as evidence, I think there is plenty (obviously as I am a theist).  Reality is imo the biggest piece of evidence.

 

Dry is not evidence of wet even though it provides a frame of reference for NOT dry.

 

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I would agree, and this would apply to atheists as well.

 

In the context that atheists are humans, yes. Otherwise, this is an absurd claim as the label "atheist" means not believing in a deity. NOT (something that defies reality) is not an extraordinary claim. Nor could there be evidence for the absence of existence. Also, "this would apply to atheists as well," does not satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence required by your extraordinary claim of the existence of a deity. You're deflecting.

 

everything in reality either exists because of a creator or exists as a brute fact (it exists because it exists).

 

False dichotomy. Exists means is made of matter and energy. That something exists and how it came to exist aren't even comparable and therefore could never logically be opposing or all encompassing. Also, if it is your premise that everything that exists must have been created, then who created the creator? Who created the creator of the creator? And so on ad infinitum.

 

It is a performative contradiction to put forth integrity as a standard if you are unwilling or unable to comply to that standard yourself. Disingenuous indeed.

[den603]

You say that yo are a scientist and that you follow the scientific method (i'm sure this has already been said) but you haven't tried to use the method to find the existence of god possible or impossible. And i am currently reading the bible and question how anyone could believe this, but then i realize that most Christians either don't read the bible or only read the parts that show them in a positive light and out of context, but i find it wrong to endorse slavery, rape, genocide, etc. the bible says that if a man kills another man's slave he must pay out to the man 10 sheckles, if you rape an unmarried woman you must pay 50 sheckles to the woman's father and marry the woman. the Jews were traveling and when denied passage they killed every man woman and child of the people there. (and one of the genocides commited by god with the flood, or the killing of every first born Egyptian after god messed with free will and forced the pharaoh to deny the Jews something.) i'm just trying to throw in my 2 cents, i was raised christian but i feel i always knew it didnt make sense but i used some of the "doublethink" and put out of my mind any objections but after much thought and a basic knowledge of the bible and seeing radical religious people kill and die in the name of god or just do wierd stuff i just started to identify as atheist, i didn't "come out of the closet about it until discovering Stefan and became a lot my comfortable with myself and my beliefs.

[Alin]

This is my first day here and already I am a disturbed by some lack of integrity and respect especially regarding Christianity.

 

 

When christianity will show respect (which is never), that's when it can expect respect in return. Or maybe you think threatening someone with eternal hell and telling them they're a sinner for existing is respectful. As for the rest, tldr as I bet it's a bunch of nonsense just like your first sentence. Bye

[Josh F]

  I was an atheist and brought up by atheists and nothing was pounded into me.

Can you go into more detail about your parents and their beliefs?  I'm always extremely skeptical when a Christian tells me they were once an atheist, or that their parents were once atheist.  There has to be so much more missing for that to make any sense.  Can you share with us what discipline was like in your home?  

[DCLugi]

 

@DSayers said: "Well, this thread is predicated on one short, simple statement: you accept Christianity as truth. Several people have asked you how you know and you continue to avoid the question."

 

Yes - OK then.

 

How do we know anything is truth?  We test it.

 

We had the vicar from the local parish church in our village knock on the door asking if we wanted to go on a 6 evening course to learn about Christianity.

He was (is) a highly intelligent and educated man who became a vicar after being an officer in the army, (tanks I think).  He was not how I thought of as a typical 'religious' person. He had his feet firmly on the ground obviously a intellectual willing to discuss anything.  I greatly enjoyed the discussion and thought it would be fun doing it once a week in the evening.

 

The course went into historical facts and what the bible teaches about life and how to live it (basically the concept that the designer of a car knows best how to maintain it and get the best performance - and so if God created us then He can give us clear insights on how to live).

 

So it gets to the week about the Holy Spirit.  We learn what the Bible says about Him and that we can receive Him by simple prayer.  A bit spooky for a non-Christian - but this is my test of the whole thing so I agree to be prayed for.  Remember that I was brought up an Atheist and not had anything indoctrinated and this was a non-emotional, Anglican, non-hyped up affair.

 

Well I kneeled in the library and the Vicar, my wife and a woman and gently put their hands on my head and asked the Holy Spirit to come.

 

Wham!  I got what was like a lightening strike on the right side of my face that turned into what felt like hot water that poured through my cheek down the back of my neck and into the area of my heart.

I startled the group and said what happened.  They asked me to kneel again and that they would keep praying.

Wham! The exact same thing happened again.

 

Noone was touching my face.  Noone had said that anything would happen at all. I had not heard of anything like this before and not since.  There was no expectancy - it was completely out of the blue.

 

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out.

 

I have worked in an orphanage in Romania; out on the streets in England at night with the homeless; run the church finances -and lots of other jobs.  There is not a more loving, honest, generous, passionate group of people than in the protestant churches I have visited in England, Romania, USA, Tobago, and many other places.

 

I know the Catholic, Muslim, cults, and Jewish churches often have been involved in massive abuse - but what you might not know is that they still live by Gods law - and make up hundreds of their own.  They do not accept what it actually says in the Bible which is that since Jesus we are no longer under the law.  Its all about love now.  Love your neighbour and love your enemies.

 

Is that to say that before Jesus god's law was highly immoral and didn't Jesus claim to be god? Cheers.

[shirgall]

Can you go into more detail about your parents and their beliefs?  I'm always extremely skeptical when a Christian tells me they were once an atheist, or that their parents were once atheist.  There has to be so much more missing for that to make any sense.  Can you share with us what discipline was like in your home?  

 

I'll bite. My grandparents and my parents never pushed religion on me. I never even went into a church of any type until I was practically out of high school. When I was old enough (mid-teens) I was provided with a number of religious books if I cared to read them and make up my own mind.

 

However, my ACE score is 6... focused on the spanking and yelling side of the house.

[corbyco]

Can you go into more detail about your parents and their beliefs?  I'm always extremely skeptical when a Christian tells me they were once an atheist, or that their parents were once atheist.  There has to be so much more missing for that to make any sense.  Can you share with us what discipline was like in your home?  

 

Basically my Father would not entertain any discussion on religion.  If the subject did come up then it was reasserted that religion was a delusion for the weak and that anyone who believed in a god was obviously stupid.

He was an empiricist and an absolute believer in 'truth' at any cost. He was the one who taught me to question and test everything.

His idea of discipline was to shout very, very loudly. He would literally go red in the face as if he was going to burst.  Strangely this caused my 2 sisters and my brother to break down in tears and broke their spirit but I seemed to have an inner strength that made me able to stand up to him.  

 

My Grandmother was a Catholic who was taught that only the priests could interpret the Bible. She had a Bible but was not allowed to read it. My Mother had no faith and never discussed anything religious with me.

[powder]

 

His idea of discipline was to shout very, very loudly. He would literally go red in the face as if he was going to burst.  Strangely this caused my 2 sisters and my brother to break down in tears and broke their spirit but I seemed to have an inner strength that made me able to stand up to him.  

 

I don't find it strange that your siblings were visibly upset by your fathers abusive, bullying behavior.  It upset the heck out of you as well and its certainly a very good reason to want to find a better 'dad'.  I think that answers Josh query.  I had a father who did the same kind of thing to us.  I don't know what 'inner strength' is but I learned to 'suck it up' or suck it in as well and come off as stoic and tough, and I don't call that strength anymore. I would guess that your relationship with your father helped you develop your capacity for forgiveness as you describe it as well. 

[Jer]

I'm not sure we can discard 2000 years of Christian sectarian violence so easily.

 

As for today, how about the administration claiming that ISIS was executing Christians as a excuse for bombing, when the facts were that ISIS was executing far more of people from different Muslim sects?

 

How about the neocons constantly harping on the 700 Club for war? Why don't they count?

Don't forget George W says God told him to invade Iraq

[shirgall]

Don't forget George W says God told him to invade Iraq

 

And his father said Atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote. Winners, all.

[corbyco]

shirgall, on 03 Oct 2014 - 1:10 PM, said:

I'm not sure we can discard 2000 years of Christian sectarian violence so easily.

 

As for today, how about the administration claiming that ISIS was executing Christians as a excuse for bombing, when the facts were that ISIS was executing far more of people from different Muslim sects?

 

How about the neocons constantly harping on the 700 Club for war? Why don't they count?

Quote:  Don't forget George W says God told him to invade Iraq

 

If someone called themselves an anarchist or libertarian and then joined Occupy Wall Street - would you say that anarchists are hypocrites - or that the ones that joined the protests were simply not who they say they are.

You judge people by what they do, not by what they say they believe.

[Jer]

 

shirgall, on 03 Oct 2014 - 1:10 PM, said:

Quote:  Don't forget George W says God told him to invade Iraq

 

If someone called themselves an anarchist or libertarian and then joined Occupy Wall Street - would you say that anarchists are hypocrites - or that the ones that joined the protests were simply not who they say they are.

You judge people by what they do, not by what they say they believe.

 

I was responding to your post that said Christians haven't started wars or whatever you said. It's a pretty huge deal for brainwashed kids like I was to hear that God wants us to go to war.

 

Why would an anarchist not be against bank bailouts?

[shirgall]

If someone called themselves an anarchist or libertarian and then joined Occupy Wall Street - would you say that anarchists are hypocrites - or that the ones that joined the protests were simply not who they say they are.

 

You judge people by what they do, not by what they say they believe.

 

The original Occupy was all about protesting the bankster bailouts until they were co-opted by the communists, but yes, I judge people by their behavior not their beliefs. Justifying Iraq with religion or wishing to suppress a vote because of religion makes me dislikes the Georges Bush, not religionists. But the common element of pretending to be true what they don't know to be true makes me distrust all the religious, animists, Marxists, and Keynesians.

[mang]

Don't think you'll find a lot of religious or agnostic people here.
Everyone seems convinced that there is no god.

This, of course, doesn't mean that you can't be welcomed to the community! 
Welcome!