Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[Nathans_Dad]

Jim, that's all due to organized religion. That isn't what we are talking about.

Now stop posting so I can go mow!

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

You're right Stuart...every thread you post on somehow turns to this exact same discussion...but it's always the other guy's fault..

Here is a snip from your fourth post on this thread. I'm proud of you that you could contain yourself for three posts before delving into religion bashing. Seriously, these types of statements are exactly what derail a thread. If you want to simply discuss atheism and rationalism as you claim, then whether religion is a superstition has no bearing on that discussion. You invite these threads...

And here is the full quote in its context, which goes directly to the premise of the thread, only a few posts up.

Originally Posted by stuartj

Believers believe what they will, and many will do so even faced with compelling evidence to the contrary. This question is really about atheists. Atheism is one front one the battleline. Religous belief is just another superstition.

Couldnt it be said that the WAR is between the Rational and the Faith Based? Win that war, religion just withers and dies right alongside water divining.

Im pretty tired of your- and jeffs- dishonesty. You are both lazy and you just make stuff up. The most rigorous thing Ive seen you do is ping me for a typo. Well done on that.

I dont think you either offered anything of value in this thread, and I dont think either of you - certainly Jeff - exhibit good will in this type of discussion.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Jim, that's all due to organized religion. That isn't what we are talking about.

Now stop posting so I can go mow!

While you're happily mowing the yard, think about how they (my questions) are really just a natural outcome of your dismssal of other organized religions. And, how atheism is believing in one less god, and that belief's social form (religion), than you believe in.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by tobster1911

That is your rational assignment of probability. Because we are here, you assign the cause of our existence to the theory you like best?

Can you please answer this for me. Do you have anything with an extremely small probability of occurrence worth "believing" in?

The probability of man evolving from that original life is extrmeley high. Here we are.

There probabality of life beginning on earth in the first instance is very low. Here we invoke the magic of large numbers.

There are hundreds of billions of stars like ours in the universe. Orbiting some of them are planets similar to this one. We can say with a high level of confidence that there is almost certinainly life, in a form we understand it, out there somewhere, on Goldilocks planet like this which supports water.

I beleive the statistical probability of this. I neither believe nor disbeleive there is life elsewhere in the Universe.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by stuartj

The probability of man evolving from that original life is extrmeley high. Here we are.

There probabality of life beginning on earth in the first instance is very low. Here we invoke the magic of large numbers.

There are hundreds of billions of stars like ours in the universe. Orbiting some of them are planets similar to this one. We can say with a high level of confidence that there is almost certinainly life, in a form we understand it, out there somewhere, on Goldilocks planet like this which supports water.

I beleive the statistical probability of this. I neither believe nor disbeleive there is life elsewhere in the Universe.

You effectively believe in a singularity then. On a planet brimming with life, you believe that it had one origin, and did not happen again. You don't believe that we have new forms of life spontaniously forming, but that all life on this planet can trace itself back to one common origin.

[tobster1911]

Originally Posted by stuartj

The probability of man evolving from that original life is extrmeley high. Here we are.

There probabality of life beginning on earth in the first instance is very low. Here we invoke the magic of large numbers.

There are hundreds of billions of stars like ours in the universe. Orbiting some of them are planets similar to this one. We can say with a high level of confidence that there is almost certinainly life, in a form we understand it, out there somewhere, on Goldilocks planet like this which supports water.

I beleive the statistical probability of this. I neither believe nor disbeleive there is life elsewhere in the Universe.

I don't understand how you make the leap (of faith ) that our existence proves "the probability of man evolving from that original life is extremely high". It does not. It says the probability of life existing is very high. Not the cause of its existence.

"There probability of life beginning on earth in the first instance is very low." So before life began would a rational person have believed in this imaginary so-called life?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

While you're happily mowing the yard, think about how they (my questions) are really just a natural outcome of your dismssal of other organized religions. And, how atheism is believing in one less god, and that belief's social form (religion), than you believe in.

I get all that Jim and I am not going to be one of the people who try and defend the actions of organized religion over the course of history.

It is beginning to sound like the motivation for all this (from the atheist side) stems from a deep problem with organized religion. I can understand that, people have used religion to oppress others for centuries.

I guess I would only ask whether it is appropriate to blame God (or whatever supreme being you prefer) for what man does in God's name?

The two issues are truly separate. Whether or not a supreme being exists is a completely different question than whether or not organized religion should exist or a discussion of the wrongs committed by man in the name of God.

God either exists or he doesn't. Maybe he has the snowy white beard and throws thunderbolts, maybe not. Whatever the actions of man on this earth, whether it be in the name of God or Allah or karma, have no relation to whether God exists and thus no relation in a discussion of whether someone is stupid or ignorant for believing in that God.

P.S. Man, is it HOT out there!

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I guess I would only ask whether it is appropriate to blame God (or whatever supreme being you prefer) for what man does in God's name?

The atheist doesn't blame god because he doesn't believe he exists. That would be futile, needless to say. I can only blame his followers.

You're right, though - get rid of organized religion and a lot of this discussion goes away. I could care less who or what you believe in - just keep it to yourself (speaking to theists in general) and stop telling everyone else that their way of life is wrong because "your god" doesn't approve of it.

When (according to Joeaksa) the Muslims become a more vocal percentage of the population in this country and try to invoke Sharia law, or convert your children to Islam in school, etc., I hope you can sit back and say "I don't have a dog in this fight - they can believe whatever they want and it's fine with me".

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I get all that Jim and I am not going to be one of the people who try and defend the actions of organized religion over the course of history.

It is beginning to sound like the motivation for all this (from the atheist side) stems from a deep problem with organized religion. I can understand that, people have used religion to oppress others for centuries.


snipped...

P.S. Man, is it HOT out there!

It's air-conditioned where I'm sitting.

Rick, what I'm really getting at is that it's easy for the believer to dismiss other gods and their attendent religions. But it's much harder when you begin to dismiss that last god. The institutions (e.g., gov't, schools, courts) and the communities we live in just don't seem to accept that, and keep shoving that last god into one's face. All in the name of an invisible being that no one has a shred of evidence that it even exists. To paraphrase trekkor, just "feelings."

[Taz's Master]

Jim, where do you draw the line between making decisions based on feelings and irrational behaviour?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It's air-conditioned where I'm sitting.

Rick, what I'm really getting at is that it's easy for the believer to dismiss other gods and their attendent religions. But it's much harder when you begin to dismiss that last god. The institutions (e.g., gov't, schools, courts) and the communities we live in just don't seem to accept that, and keep shoving that last god into one's face. All in the name of an invisible being that no one has a shred of evidence that it even exists. To paraphrase trekkor, just "feelings."

Yeah, but that isn't a trait unique to the religious. Take a look at the political threads here. One side screams foul when the other side does something, yet excuses it when their own side does it. That's called being human.

If what IROC says is true, though and the atheist truly doesn't blame God because the atheist believes he doesn't exist, then we are back at the root of the question I posed earlier.

What is your dog in this fight then? Why do you get all worked up about the Christian God but just smile and shake your head at the discussion of alien babies? If they are both equally improbable and those that believe in them both equally ignorant then what's the motivation?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

Jim, where do you draw the line between making decisions based on feelings and irrational behaviour?

This is where I'd draw that line...I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sure I'm more righter then they are.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Haven't we already killed the ontological arguments in ITAG? This is like deja vu all over again.

What is "ITAG" and more importantly....which premise is faulty and why?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

This is where I'd draw that line...I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sure I'm more righter then they are.

I don't know, that line seems awful broad, and honestly red is overdone.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Probably the only people who truly can understand both sides of this discussion are the ones who were true absolute atheists, and then were personally introduced to a god, and therefore, had to believe afterwards. The membership in that club is VERY small.

I'm in that club.


KT

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

The problem is, Trekkor plays the same way back...he is just as guilty of attacking others beliefs as they are of attacking his. Therefore, he lost my respect. You don't do that, so you're still on my "list of OK God-guys "

I don't think you can produce a single example of what you accuse.


KT

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Superman

What is "ITAG" and more importantly....which premise is faulty and why?

Don't be so coy. Try the "Is There A God" thread, where you trotted it out with no effect on multiple occasions, such as this response to your post...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/3322057-post2798.html

[K. Roman]

I think an attack means, your god is somehow gonna come down from heaven and cast most of us into hell. Sort of an attack.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

This is where I'd draw that line...I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sure I'm more righter then they are.

Well done! Now, can you do that in Aubergine?

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

I think an attack means, your god is somehow gonna come down from heaven and cast most of us into hell. Sort of an attack.

I've never made a statement like that.

If I make a quote from a book that has been available your entire life, how is that an attack?

You likely have the book in your home. Maybe several tranlations.


My history in these threads is to clearly, calmly and respectfully post what I have learned. Not attack or ridicule. Certainly not call people names.

Are you confusing me with someone else?


KT