Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Atheist Censorship

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:56 PM
German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Atheist Censorship

 (Read 48375 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #60 - April 15, 2011, 01:08 AM
    Quote from: billy on April 15, 2011, 12:45 AM
    There might be UFO's in our orbit as we speak, so I guess its presumptuous and arrogant to discount the idea that aliens exist and are visiting us right now, too. Its about on the same level as that kind of presumptousness.
     


    It's not necessarily arrogant, but it is presumptuous to assert that aliens definitely don't exist or visit the earth, just as it is to dismiss all scriptures and religions outright as being nonsense, without the knowledge to make such a conclusion.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #61 - April 15, 2011, 01:09 AM
    I find it really really hard to believe that not a single one of these batshit crazy evangelists, diabolical doomsayers, or cunning snake oil salesmen have seized the opportunity to be the first one to present this miracle information, if only to sell a few books and DVDs.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #62 - April 15, 2011, 01:10 AM
    Quote
    Yeah, but that's the same as saying if we ignore the fact that it isn't a prophecy, it would be a prophecy.

    true... all i'm saying there's no way to prove/disprove prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled ages ago.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #63 - April 15, 2011, 01:10 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 12:46 AM
    Ok, the current lot of trash we speak of when we say "scripture" is all myths and fables, and the millions of people who believe in the "scripture" we are referring to do so on the basis of no evidence.

    Is that fair to say?


    Not really because we don't know all there is to know about those scriptures. Some of it may be demonstrable bollocks, that doesn't mean that there's absolutely nothing to them.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #64 - April 15, 2011, 01:12 AM
    Quote from: debunker on April 15, 2011, 01:10 AM
    true... all i'm saying there's no way to prove/disprove prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled ages ago.

    I agree. Prophecy is foresight, not hindsight. Saying the Gospels contain prophecy about the destruction of the temple is like saying Inglorious Bastards contains prophecy about World War Two.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #65 - April 15, 2011, 01:15 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:10 AM
    Not really because we don't know all there is to know about those scriptures. Some of it may be demonstrable bollocks, that doesn't mean that there's absolutely nothing to them.

    This is a problem in itself. You're not gonna prove the existence of God to me with scripture that might contain proof but, as far as we know, doesn't.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #66 - April 15, 2011, 01:17 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:09 AM
    I find it really really hard to believe that not a single one of these batshit crazy evangelists, diabolical doomsayers, or cunning snake oil salesmen have seized the opportunity to be the first one to present this miracle information, if only to sell a few books and DVDs.


    Well, there are Jews who claim that the Torah is miraculous, and even that the Hebrew language is. They believe that the Torah and the arrangement of its words and letters is such that it must be of divine origin. The Jews too claim to have a numerical code in their book, and they have the Gematria, but how many people have knowledge of the Hebrew Bible or its alleged miraculous characteristics? I contend that it's quite easy for  most people not to know, or be told, about such things that some religionists do consider to be miracles.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #67 - April 15, 2011, 01:17 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:10 AM
    Not really because we don't know all there is to know about those scriptures. Some of it may be demonstrable bollocks, that doesn't mean that there's absolutely nothing to them.

    It also doesn't mean that there is necessarily anything to them.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #68 - April 15, 2011, 01:19 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:15 AM
    This is a problem in itself. You're not gonna prove the existence of God to me with scripture that might contain proof but, as far as we know, doesn't.


    I'm not trying to prove the existence of a god to you at all, this is getting off my original point. I simply claimed that since it's possible for these books to contain miracles, of whatever kind, it is therefore presumptuous to conclude, without knowledge, that all scriptures are composed purely of myths and fables.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #69 - April 15, 2011, 01:20 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 15, 2011, 01:17 AM
    It also doesn't mean that there is necessarily anything to them.


    I never said it did. See what I just wrote to Ishina.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #70 - April 15, 2011, 01:21 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:17 AM
    Well, there are Jews who claim that the Torah is miraculous, and even that the Hebrew language is. They believe that the Torah and the arrangement of its words and letters is such that it must be of divine origin. The Jews too claim to have a numerical code in their book, and they have the Gematria, but how many people have knowledge of the Hebrew Bible or its alleged miraculous characteristics? I contend that it's quite easy for  most people not to know, or be told, about such things that some religionists do consider to be miracles.

    In ancient times, superstitious people didn't even believe in the Prophets until they parted the sea or walked on water. In modern times, so-called enlightened people believe in the Prophets because they found some letter patterns in an ancient book. What is wrong with this picture?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #71 - April 15, 2011, 01:23 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:19 AM
    I'm not trying to prove the existence of a god to you at all, this is getting off my original point. I simply claimed that since it's possible for these books to contain miracles, of whatever kind, it is therefore presumptuous to conclude, without knowledge, that all scriptures are composed purely of myths and fables.

    It's possible that The Lord of the Rings contains miracles, of whatever kind. I'm not gonna lose sleep if you think I'm presumptuous to conclude that it doesn't.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #72 - April 15, 2011, 01:34 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:21 AM
    In ancient times, superstitious people didn't even believe in the Prophets until they parted the sea or walked on water. In modern times, so-called enlightened people believe in the Prophets because they found some letter patterns in an ancient book. What is wrong with this picture?


    Well, if it were the case that the numerical patterns were so precise that it could only be done by contriving the very language and its alphabet to have specific numerical values, it would be very difficult for a human to do that. Or, if the patterns showed some kind of scientific fact, like the alleged 'speed of light' miracle in the Qur'an, then that too might constitute such an evidence. Note I'm not affirming any particular claim, but such patterns could indicate that at least some part of the text was of supernatural origin, or at least, it wasn't just being made up by ignorant, pre-medieval humans.

    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:23 AM
    It's possible that The Lord of the Rings contains miracles, of whatever kind. I'm not gonna lose sleep if you think I'm presumptuous to conclude that it doesn't.


    And don't expect me to lose sleep over the fact that you won't lose sleep over it. Tongue
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #73 - April 15, 2011, 01:37 AM
    Which came first - the miraculous scripture or the language it was written in?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #74 - April 15, 2011, 01:42 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:19 AM
    I'm not trying to prove the existence of a god to you at all, this is getting off my original point. I simply claimed that since it's possible for these books to contain miracles, of whatever kind, it is therefore presumptuous to conclude, without knowledge, that all scriptures are composed purely of myths and fables.

    There is no reason to assume that they do contain miracles. Therefore, assuming that they do not is not particularly presumptuous given that miracles would contravene everything we know of how the universe works in reality.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #75 - April 15, 2011, 01:46 AM
    "Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?’’
    ~ David Hume
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #76 - April 15, 2011, 01:49 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:37 AM
    Which came first - the miraculous scripture or the language it was written in?


    Er, the scripture.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #77 - April 15, 2011, 01:52 AM
    So, the scripture was written blind by an author channeling an unknown language?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #78 - April 15, 2011, 01:53 AM
    Zeb: How do you figure that?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #79 - April 15, 2011, 02:00 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:52 AM
    So, the scripture was written blind by an author channeling an unknown language?


    Sorry, my bad. Misread. The other way around, duh!
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #80 - April 15, 2011, 02:01 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:46 AM
    "Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?’’
    ~ David Hume


    It may be that when a 'miracle' happens, the natural order isn't suspended, but we just don't understand the mechanisms behind what we consider to be 'miraculous,' for want of a better word.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #81 - April 15, 2011, 02:04 AM
    The thing you seem to be missing is that it is not presumptuous to ignore a claim which there is no reason to accept. In fact, one could argue that it is significantly more presumptuous to condemn as presumptuous those who refuse to accept your claims which you have absolutely no basis for.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #82 - April 15, 2011, 02:07 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 01:46 AM
    "Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?’’
    ~ David Hume


    I've always found this an interesting quote. By natural order one assumes that Hume is referring to mechanical, repeatable causal connections between events. Yet, it is Hume that forever destroyed the idea that we can have deductible causal connections between events. he seems to have argued himself into a corner.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #83 - April 15, 2011, 02:08 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 14, 2011, 11:18 PM
    @z10

    It's a bit of both, but more than that still.

    Kalam isn't all bad as it refutes the 'steady state' universe (though it doesn't nearly demonstrate all that Craig intends it to) and the fine tuning argument is not entirely useless, as it makes more plausible the notion of 'design,' and thus is evidence against atheism. The arguments do have major flaws though, they're not irrefutable by any means.

    And Dawkins likes to make it seem as though the theism-atheism debate is entirely one-sided: stupid, misguided religionists believing iron-age nonsense on the one hand and enlightened and rational, scientifically-minded types bearing the banner of the advancement of the human race on the other.

    I'd like Dawkins to debate Craig so he can get taken down a few pegs, but also so all his fanboys can see that things aren't nearly as simple as they like to believe. If atheism is given a philosophical kicking with rational and scientific arguments, then the atheists may think twice about bleating out the same old waffle about how rationality and empirical evidence is their exclusive domain.

    As far as I'm concerned, modern atheists, materialists, Scientists, etc., can be every bit as arrogant and dogmatic, yet simultaneously misguided, as those religionists they claim to so vehemently oppose and contradict. They have to learn that they likewise don't have The Truth.


    This is a great post.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #84 - April 15, 2011, 02:09 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:00 AM
    Sorry, my bad. Misread. The other way around, duh!

    And so, the numerical value and quality of the language would exist, regardless of if it was applied to a list of divine commandments or a list of groceries?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #85 - April 15, 2011, 02:11 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:01 AM
    It may be that when a 'miracle' happens, the natural order isn't suspended, but we just don't understand the mechanisms behind what we consider to be 'miraculous,' for want of a better word.

    Well then, we need to back up a bit. What is a miracle?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #86 - April 15, 2011, 02:14 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 15, 2011, 02:04 AM
    The thing you seem to be missing is that it is not presumptuous to ignore a claim which there is no reason to accept. In fact, one could argue that it is significantly more presumptuous to condemn as presumptuous those who refuse to accept your claims which you have absolutely no basis for.


    It may not be presumptuous to ignore unsubstantiated claims, but it is to assert that all religions everywhere are all fables and myths, and to do so without the requisite knowledge to make such a judgment. We're not talking about the same thing here.

    I repeat: there's nothing presumptuous about rejecting unsubstantiated claims. I never claimed that there was. I claimed that it is presumptuous to claim that all religions and their metaphysical claims are nonsense, without the knowledge to do so. There's a clear difference.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #87 - April 15, 2011, 02:15 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 14, 2011, 11:18 PM
    Kalam isn't all bad as it refutes the 'steady state' universe (though it doesn't nearly demonstrate all that Craig intends it to) and the fine tuning argument is not entirely useless, as it makes more plausible the notion of 'design,' and thus is evidence against atheism. The arguments do have major flaws though, they're not irrefutable by any means.

    What is at all useful about the fine tuning argument? It's utterly trivial and pointless. Even if it is consdered useful by some people that does not mean it has any real substance to it. It is certainly not anything like "evidence against atheism".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #88 - April 15, 2011, 02:17 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:14 AM
    It may not be presumptuous to ignore unsubstantiated claims, but it is to assert that all religions everywhere are all fables and myths, and to do so without the requisite knowledge to make such a judgment. We're not talking about the same thing here.

    I repeat: there's nothing presumptuous about rejecting unsubstantiated claims. I never claimed that there was. I claimed that it is presumptuous to claim that all religions and their metaphysical claims are nonsense, without the knowledge to do so. There's a clear difference.

    Ok, so what if somebody claims that the available evidence would indicate that all religions and their metaphysical claims are probably nonsense?

    And, since all religious claims are unsubstantiated, why should they not be rejected?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #89 - April 15, 2011, 02:19 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 02:07 AM
    I've always found this an interesting quote. By natural order one assumes that Hume is referring to mechanical, repeatable causal connections between events. Yet, it is Hume that forever destroyed the idea that we can have deductible causal connections between events. he seems to have argued himself into a corner.

    I wasn't considering the broader scope of his work, but rather the simple point that the question makes. Which is more likely: a man is born of a virgin or ancient clerics and superstitionists contrived a legend?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »