Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are all Christians atheists?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 161 (394780)
04-13-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
04-12-2007 11:29 PM


quote:
Don't most fundies claim they have considered other religions and picked the right/best one?
I don't think they do, actually.
They spend a lot of time saying that their religion is the One True Faith, but I don't recall many fundies claiming to have seriously considered any other religion with an open mind before settling upon fundamentalist christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 04-12-2007 11:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 12:29 PM nator has not replied
 Message 73 by anastasia, posted 04-14-2007 7:29 PM nator has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 161 (394787)
04-13-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
04-12-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
What's that?
Magic.
-- Just a possible truth. I'm betting you already accept that there are mysteries to reality that far exceed human knowledge. Reality might go further than what we can experience and study. What we know might be true but might only be like the earth's crust - thin.
Even probability alone can create results. Like winning the lottery - impossible before, but ertain afterwards.
The universe itself is magic enough for me.
Do you mean that it is only an opinion that any superstition is made up, or just the one you subscribe to?
Haha. That assumes it is a superstition.
Well, it's like CS said in response to you - it's just not evident to believers, that God is made up.
To you, you lump all gods in the same superstitious group. But to us it's not the same, because we don't think as you do.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 7:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 8:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 161 (394788)
04-13-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
04-13-2007 8:27 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
quote:
I'm betting you already accept that there are mysteries to reality that far exceed human knowledge. Reality might go further than what we can experience and study. What we know might be true but might only be like the earth's crust - thin.
Sure, but...so what?
If we don't know, then we don't know.
Going beyond that and saying, "There are mysteries that far exceed human knowledge, but [i]I actually have special, unsharable knowledge that allows me to understand those mysteries" is making an unwarranted leap.
It's just making stuff up. What else could it be, since we have no way of knowing if you are correct?
quote:
That assumes it is a superstition.
No, it doesn't, really.
How is it not a superstition? All belief in the supernatural is superstition.
"Religion" is just what we call our own superstition when we want to make it sound better and more respectable than all the other superstitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2007 8:27 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2007 11:06 AM nator has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 34 of 161 (394797)
04-13-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
04-13-2007 1:12 AM


Not a good argument against theism, but useful at times
It's not usually offered to portray the religious as hypocrites; it's usually offered in response to a believer who says "I can't imagine/it's not possible to not believe in God."
In that case it's highly appropriate to point out, in reply, all of the various and sundry Gods that the speaker already doesn't believe in.
I agree. It is very useful against the argument that to be an atheist requires to first assert the existence of a god, then deny it.
Maybe also can be used if someone asks an atheist for absolute proof, that does not rest on faith, of the non-existence of a supreme being. Or for one who argues that it is impossible to disprove a god.
It can also be used if someone tries to bring up Pascal's Wager, which you can turn around to Zeus vs atheist or Wodin vs atheist to show the ineffectiveness of the argument.
But it isn't a very strong argument for atheism itself. Atheism is the opponent of theism, and so various types of theism are really beside the point. I suppose it is correct to say that a Christian is an atheist towards the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH), because they are lacking a belief in that deity, but I'm not sure it is a useful argument against Christianity.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2007 1:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 35 of 161 (394798)
04-13-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nuggin
04-13-2007 2:43 AM


Re: Not a good argument
Nuggin writes:
However, there is no more evidence for belief in their faith than there is for belief in any other faith. As such, they are discarding all Gods save one out of hand based on the same criteria they are using to prop up the one they choose.
That's faith for you.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 2:43 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 36 of 161 (394799)
04-13-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-12-2007 5:29 PM


gods or God
Nuggin writes:
All Fundamental Christians are Atheists in regards to Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Vishnu, Coyote, the Hero Twins, and many many more Gods
I don't think that Fundamentalist Christians are athiests with respect to those other gods. Many of the ones I know believe that there is a supernatural aspect to those religions caused by the Enemy and his minions. Those religions are designed by Satan to fool the unwary and obscure the True Faith. They call them myths only with regard to the fact that the particular top guy of that religion is not the True God.
As I recall, Faith actually made such a statement several times when speaking about Islam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-12-2007 5:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 11:22 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 161 (394814)
04-13-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Nuggin
04-13-2007 2:36 AM


People who believe in Zeus are wrong because they think that God's name is actually Zeus, but it's not, it's God.
There's more to it than that, but still, I'm not an athiest even WRT Zeus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 2:36 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 161 (394817)
04-13-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
04-13-2007 8:40 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
Going beyond that and saying, "There are mysteries that far exceed human knowledge, but I actually have special, unsharable knowledge that allows me to understand those mysteries" is making an unwarranted leap.
It's just making stuff up. What else could it be, since we have no way of knowing if you are correct?
So if force X divulges information to source C but source D doesn't know it, or can't know it, then it's made up?
How is it not a superstition? All belief in the supernatural is superstition
Define superstition.
I usually think of superstition as in the following;
If I step on cracks in the pavement, I'll die in two days
Or;
If the wind turns the tide the Oden wants me to live
Belief in God of itself, is not a superstition. I agree that he is unknowable in a sense, but only because of a technicality which is irrelevant.
If force X and source C have a correspondence, it's irrelevant as to what other sources conclude. it becomes a reality which is merely unknowable to other sources.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 8:40 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 11:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 12:05 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 39 of 161 (394823)
04-13-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by LinearAq
04-13-2007 9:26 AM


Re: gods or God
I don't think that Fundamentalist Christians are athiests with respect to those other gods. Many of the ones I know believe that there is a supernatural aspect to those religions caused by the Enemy and his minions.
How is that not atheism in regards to Thor?
Fundy - "I don't believe that Thor is real, I believe that people who believe in Thor are just being tricked by the Devil".
That's atheistic in regards to Thor. (or Zeus, or Coyote, etc.)
Just because Fundamentalists are polytheistic in regards to God and Satan, doesn't mean that they are not atheistic in regards to every other God in the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LinearAq, posted 04-13-2007 9:26 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 161 (394824)
04-13-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by mike the wiz
04-13-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
How are these any different:
"If the wind turns the tide, Oden wants me to live."
-and-
"If two men love each other, they will both burn in Hell."
Both are either completely arbitrary or absolutely true.
You can't say that there is any more evidence for one than the other.
------ second point ------
If Force X and Source C have a correspondence, and Source C goes back to taking their lithium and Force X vanishes, does that mean that lithium can kill God?
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2007 11:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 41 of 161 (394827)
04-13-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
04-13-2007 1:12 AM


Re: Not a good argument
it's usually offered in response to a believer who says "I can't imagine/it's not possible to not believe in God."
I agree with you with the way you phrased it but the core question from the OP seems different than what you are talking about.
OP writes:
What reason do you have to believe that people with as much, if not more, spiritual evidence in the existence of their Gods are some how wrong?
The hidden implication in that question is that we are talking about hypocrisy.
In that case it's highly appropriate to point out, in reply, all of the various and sundry Gods that the speaker already doesn't believe in.
But they don't have disbelief in those Gods for the same reasons. ("I can't imagine/its not possible to not believe in God")
They have disbelief in those Gods because they believe that their particular holy book instructs them to have this disbelief.
This is why the argument fails with fundamentalists. They don't necessarily reject other deities on their base absurdity. They reject them because THEIR God says to.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2007 1:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2007 1:41 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 161 (394829)
04-13-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nuggin
04-13-2007 2:43 AM


Re: Not a good argument
However, there is no more evidence for belief in their faith than there is for belief in any other faith. As such, they are discarding all Gods save one out of hand based on the same criteria they are using to prop up the one they choose.
I agree. But a fundamentalist is not going to see it that way. They are often going to cite some ethereal "fate" argument (i.e. I used to be into drugs, alcohol, satanism) for why they found their particular God and the exclusivity just gets snowballed in.
It is not like all the pantheon of Gods that have ever existed were laid out in front of these people and they arbitrarily chose one.
I just think that you are not going to find a meat in a discussion surrounding this challenge to religious people. Their rejection of other deities is not based on reasonableness or objectivity.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 2:43 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 161 (394830)
04-13-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by mike the wiz
04-13-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
quote:
So if force X divulges information to source C but source D doesn't know it, or can't know it, then it's made up?
Like I said already, there's no way to tell if you are correct.
It might as well be made up if there's no way to know which one is right.
OTOH, we DO know that certain brain abnormalities make people hear God, or demons, or aliens, or what have you.
If someone who says they are Jesus, are they Jesus?
quote:
If force X and source C have a correspondence, it's irrelevant as to what other sources conclude. it becomes a reality which is merely unknowable to other sources.
So, how can one tell the difference between reality and self-delusion in this case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2007 11:06 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2007 12:23 PM nator has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 161 (394835)
04-13-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
04-13-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
So, how can one tell the difference between reality and self-delusion in this case?
I've no genuine reason to believe it is self-delusion, from my experience. It's a process that is interior and exterior, and my inferences are reasonable.
I don't need a science experiment to know that chocolate is tastey to me. It's only your assumption that it is self-delusion which would make me start to consider whether that experience was delusion.
Just because you assign self-delusion to the equation doesn't mean it is that.
Like I said already, there's no way to tell if you are correct.
That doesn't mean I'm incorrect. You favour that it IS superstition, and that it is incorrect, which isn't impartial Shraff - it comes from your own beliefs.
If you and I started typing in Japanese, and only you and I could understand it - then objectively, people could conclude that we're speaking nonsense, if they never come to understand Japanese.
Now dost thou ponder the unlimitles irrefutability of my tongue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 12:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 9:09 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 45 of 161 (394837)
04-13-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
04-13-2007 7:34 AM


nator writes:
They spend a lot of time saying that their religion is the One True Faith, but I don't recall many fundies claiming to have seriously considered any other religion with an open mind before settling upon fundamentalist christianity.
It's true that in "real life" they pick a religion first. ("Oh, look. By sheer coincidence, it's my parents' religion.") And then they "consider" other religions. ("Oh, look. By sheer coincidence I picked the right one on the first try.")
But I think their own thought process often makes the consideration retroactive. ("Oh, look. Not only did I make the right choice, but I made it in a completely fair and rational way.")
My original point to Nuggin was that the decision to be a theist comes first and then the flavour of theist is chosen - to their way of thinking, anyway. So, what the OP suggests isn't going to make much sense from the fundie point of view.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 7:34 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024