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

German nationalist party ...
Today 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
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 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 48166 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #90 - April 15, 2011, 02:24 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:14 AM
    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.

    If you accept one scriptural account as proof of God, it follows that you would have to accept all other equivalent scriptural accounts, which puts you in the position of believing in contrary things. The fantastical claims contained in the different traditions and scriptures of each of the worlds religions are no more or less authoritative or compelling than each other.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #91 - April 15, 2011, 02:25 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 02:19 AM
    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?


    Sure, it is extremely unlikely that a person can be born without a father. However, can we say it is impossible? To say that it is impossible is to have a law that necessarily is true and, I think it is fair to bring Hume's other point in here, we have no necessary laws and even more, we cannot have necessary laws.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #92 - April 15, 2011, 02:26 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 02:08 AM
    This is a great post.


    Thank you, akhi  Afro
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #93 - April 15, 2011, 02:29 AM
    @Osman

    Quote
    What is at all useful about the fine tuning argument?


    It makes atheists doubt. And I didn't say that the argument was flawless, simply that it had some force to it.

    ETA: Discussion about fune tuning split to here.

    Quote from: osmanthus on April 15, 2011, 02:17 AM
    Ok, so what if somebody claims that the available evidence would indicate that all religions and their metaphysical claims are probably nonsense?


    That's a much more balanced, and less presumptuous, approach.

    Quote
    And, since all religious claims are unsubstantiated, why should they not be rejected?


    That is the subject under discussion. It's not necessarily the case.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #94 - April 15, 2011, 02:33 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 02:25 AM
    Sure, it is extremely unlikely that a person can be born without a father. However, can we say it is impossible? To say that it is impossible is to have a law that necessarily is true and, I think it is fair to bring Hume's other point in here, we have no necessary laws and even more, we cannot have necessary laws.

    We can say we are not convinced, though. We can say people lie. We can also say witness testimony is invalid proof on its own.  We have nothing else to go on - there is no scientific knowledge that wasn't available at the time, and no precise prophecy, nor anything that couldn't have been contrived with hindsight, in any of the usual suspect scripture.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #95 - April 15, 2011, 02:34 AM
    @Ishina

    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 02:11 AM
    Well then, we need to back up a bit. What is a miracle?


    It's often defined as something contrary to natural law, but no-doubt we could extend it to such phenomena that are (at least presently) unexplainable to us, like, say, ESP.

    Quote
    If you accept one scriptural account as proof of God, it follows that you would have to accept all other equivalent scriptural accounts, which puts you in the position of believing in contrary things.


    Again, this is another subject. I'm not saying that you believe it on the basis of that scripture's mere assertion, but rather, on the basis of some evidence within the scripture, e.g., scientific miracles. And of course, not all scriptures need be inspired or contain information that only supernatural intelligences could know.

    Quote
    The fantastical claims contained in the different traditions and scriptures of each of the worlds religions are no more or less authoritative or compelling than each other.


    Maybe, but if there were one that contained miracles, it would certainly be more credible than the others.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #96 - April 15, 2011, 02:35 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:29 AM
    @Osman

    It makes atheists doubt. And I didn't say that the argument was flawless, simply that it had some force to it.

    But it has no force whatsoever to it. Like I said, it's trivial.

    Quote
    That's a much more balanced, and less presumptuous, approach.

    And it is basically what people usually mean when they say religious claims are bollocks.

    Quote
    That is the subject under discussion. It's not necessarily the case.

    It is not necessarily the case, in the pedantic sense of being necessary, but once again there is no substantiation provided for any of these claims. If there were, religious apologists would not even bother mentioning faith. Funnily enough, they rely on it very heavily indeed.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #97 - April 15, 2011, 02:36 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 02:33 AM
    We can say we are not convinced, though. We can say people lie. We can also say witness testimony is invalid proof on its own.  We have nothing else to go on - there is no scientific knowledge that wasn't available at the time, and no precise prophecy, nor anything that couldn't have been contrived with hindsight, in any of the usual suspect scripture.


    I agree, I am also unconvinced. I just think most thought on miracles is just a tautology. It goes something like this:
    1. Only natural laws exist.
    2. A miracle is outside of natural law.
    3. Therefore, miracles don't exist.

    That, to me at least, is a pointless argument.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #98 - April 15, 2011, 02:42 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:34 AM
    It's often defined as something contrary to natural law, but no-doubt we could extend it to such phenomena that are (at least presently) unexplainable to us, like, say, ESP.

    No. Let's separate miracle from unexplained. It makes things easier to follow. Miracle as in something overtly breaching known natural law.

    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:34 AM
    Again, this is another subject. I'm not saying that you believe it on the basis of that scripture's mere assertion, but rather, on the basis of some evidence within the scripture, e.g., scientific miracles. And of course, not all scriptures need be inspired or contain information that only supernatural intelligences could know.

    The issue isn't that a miracle wouldn't be valid evidence, the issue is that miracles are not forthcoming.

    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 02:34 AM
    Maybe, but if there were one that contained miracles, it would certainly be more credible than the others.

    Yes, if.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #99 - April 15, 2011, 02:46 AM
    William Lane Craig did not win the debate against Hitchens, Sam Harris, and certainley not against Bart Ehrman.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #100 - April 15, 2011, 02:55 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 02:36 AM
    I agree, I am also unconvinced. I just think most thought on miracles is just a tautology. It goes something like this:
    1. Only natural laws exist.
    2. A miracle is outside of natural law.
    3. Therefore, miracles don't exist.

    That, to me at least, is a pointless argument.

    Though, the claim of divine origin or inspiration of most holy scripture hinges on these things called miracles. They are powerful things, if they exist or not, if they are seen or not.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #101 - April 15, 2011, 03:12 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 15, 2011, 02:55 AM
    Though, the claim of divine origin or inspiration of most holy scripture hinges on these things called miracles. They are powerful things, if they exist or not, if they are seen or not.


    Sorry Ishina, I didn't understand this post Huh?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #102 - April 15, 2011, 03:16 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 02:36 AM
    I agree, I am also unconvinced. I just think most thought on miracles is just a tautology. It goes something like this:
    1. Only natural laws exist.
    2. A miracle is outside of natural law.
    3. Therefore, miracles don't exist.

    That, to me at least, is a pointless argument.

    It is in the terms that you have phrased it, but I think that's a bit of a strawman. To my mind a more accurate repesentation would be something like this:

    1. Only natural laws exist, as far as we know.
    2. A miracle is outside of natural law.
    3. We have no evidence of such miracles actually occuring.
    4. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of miracles should not be assumed.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #103 - April 15, 2011, 03:19 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 03:12 AM
    Sorry Ishina, I didn't understand this post Huh?

    I think she means that the concept of miracles is what scriptures are based on, and therefore the existence of miracles needs to be demonstrated  before said scriptures have any credibility.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #104 - April 15, 2011, 04:59 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 15, 2011, 01:08 AM
    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.

    Is it also presumptuous to say that the strong belief that aliens exist and visit earth is lacking evidence and therefore unsubstantiated? 
    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #105 - April 15, 2011, 08:04 AM
    You never know what is in Space. If we concentrated more on understanding the world than following cults, killing eachother over culture and disputes, dropping bombs on civilians and blowing ones body in markets for 72 virgins.

    I would love to know what is ahead of us, what we can discover outside of earth, one can not rule out living things outside Earth.

    Imgine it is true, that there are living things out there, maybe they could benefit mankind.

  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #106 - April 15, 2011, 08:06 AM
    The aliens are hiding too  lipsrsealed

    Closet. Aliens.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #107 - April 15, 2011, 08:40 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 15, 2011, 03:16 AM
    It is in the terms that you have phrased it, but I think that's a bit of a strawman. To my mind a more accurate repesentation would be something like this:

    1. Only natural laws exist, as far as we know.
    2. A miracle is outside of natural law.
    3. We have no evidence of such miracles actually occuring.
    4. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of miracles should not be assumed.


    The way you phrase premise 1, you are basically saying that 'natural law' is synonymous with the limit of our (scientific) knowledge. Thus phrased, every new piece of knowledge is then a miracle, until it is explainable in theoretical terms and then it becomes part of our 'natural laws'. One can imagine that early humans may have found fire miraculous, just as we find telepathy miraculous today. Just wait till an Einstein/ Darwin of telepathy comes along and you will be convinced that ofcourse telepathy is a natural law and miracles of course don't exist. 
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #108 - April 15, 2011, 08:41 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 15, 2011, 03:19 AM
    I think she means that the concept of miracles is what scriptures are based on, and therefore the existence of miracles needs to be demonstrated  before said scriptures have any credibility.


    Well I suppose that is one way for the scriptures to be true, though I don't really think if god exists she would suspend her own natural order to show herself, surely she would show herself in every event as it is anyway, in the natural order of things as they are.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #109 - April 15, 2011, 08:47 AM
    You say that, but scriptures don't. They rely on miracles. Wink
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #110 - April 15, 2011, 08:51 AM
    Yes, but i'm not really in the practice of defending the words of scripture Tongue
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #111 - April 15, 2011, 08:55 AM
    Yes, but this thread was mostly about Zeb saying you can't diss scripture. Tongue

    Which were wot Herself were talking about innit. Tongue Tongue Tongue bunny
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #112 - April 15, 2011, 08:58 AM
    That's unfair, I don't think zeb said that you can't diss scripture, but that you can't dismiss all scriptures as fables without knowing them all.

    My critique of Hume's ideas on what a miracle is was independent of zeb's argument (though I agree with zeb).
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #113 - April 15, 2011, 11:02 AM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 14, 2011, 03:56 PM
    This guy is a theist and he got the boot from Dawkins' website for calling him on his chickening out of debating William Lane Craig. Even 'rational' people censor views they don't like, it would seem.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKc54E1eMg&feature=feedf


    Oh well, since yeezevee apparently decided to take a leave for an indefinite amount of time (*crosses fingers*), someone must take the job of adding a video or two, every now and then.

    Daniel Dennett, a good pal of Dawkins, seems to vaguely admit, in front of his fans, his humiliation during a past debate with WLC in this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

    and WLC seems to shamelessly boast about his victory in this vid:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1pbeXN8qo&feature=related

    seem like a formidable foe this William, son of Craig.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #114 - April 15, 2011, 11:05 AM
    ^^ See, you miss him already Debunker (as I do)
    Hi
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #115 - April 15, 2011, 11:06 AM
    RD did debate WLC in Mexico a few months ago as part of 3 man debating teams on the topic "does the universe have a purpose". I've only watched a few snippets, but here's the full vid in case anyone's interested:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8&feature=recentlik
    http://quranspotlight.wordpress.com/
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #116 - April 15, 2011, 11:07 AM
    @ musivore

     notice that I "crossed" my fingers  Wink
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #117 - April 15, 2011, 11:18 AM
    I also noticed that you've taken him off your signitaure. Good man: Why kick someone when they're down eh?
    Hi
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #118 - April 15, 2011, 11:45 AM
    @nj7

    When people talk about a debate between WLC and Dawkins, they mean a standard one-on-one, like the debate he had against Hitchens.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #119 - April 15, 2011, 11:49 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 15, 2011, 08:58 AM
    That's unfair, I don't think zeb said that you can't diss scripture, but that you can't dismiss all scriptures as fables without knowing them all.


    Yeah, although I'm sure osman knew that, he's just being funny.  yes
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »