Santa V God

[seattlegal]

Absolute bollocks. There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute. Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself. Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him and not an atheism run riot. A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power. It matters not whether that dogma is Islam or communism, the tenet of my point still holds the same.

I counter with League of the Militant Godless, to connect militant atheism to communism in the manner that Tao connected Catholicism to the Nazis.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Like I said there are more ways than one to approach proof. You still doggedly try to stick to proving or disproving God despite me now having said several times I do not care about that question.

Check your opening post for this thread and the subsequernt posts in which you specifically suggest that it is possible to disabuse people of their faith in the manner that a child is disabused of belief in Santa when he finds presents in the closet.

What I focus on, that which can be studied and the facts discerned, is the validity of belief in man himself.

But those things have nothing to do with the existence of G-d, which was the issue that you started out with for this thread. IMHO, you've been backpedaling for some time.

There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute.

Was Hitler's attack on Poland religiously motivated?

Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself.

Stalin's followers were not so self-centred. They were true believers in communism and were prepared to sacrifice everything for it.

Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him ....

That isn't an ideology that is arguably a byproduct of an atheist worldview?

A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power.

Are UK readers of Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching getting together to form a political party?

 

[Tao_Equus]

I counter with League of the Militant Godless, to connect militant atheism to communism in the manner that Tao connected Catholicism to the Nazis.

I stated this in regard to Stalin : "Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself." What you link to describes one of Stalins methods of watching and controlling in order to keep a stranglehold on any dissent. He saw religion as a method through which dissent could grow and did everything to counter that threat. Trying to say Stalin did what he did "in the name of Atheism" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Stalin may have technically been an Atheist but he did not do what he did in the name of Atheism.

tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Check your opening post for this thread and the subsequernt posts in which you specifically suggest that it is possible to disabuse people of their faith in the manner that a child is disabused of belief in Santa when he finds presents in the closet.

What anthropology, sociology, the history of religion, psychology and a raft of other scientific schools give us are the presents in the closet. You keep going on about Santa, I'm saying well it aint Christmas Day and so why the hell are the presents there.

But those things have nothing to do with the existence of G-d, which was the issue that you started out with for this thread. IMHO, you've been backpedaling for some time.

I'd say I have been talking to someone that is profoundly deaf.

Was Hitler's attack on Poland religiously motivated?

Yeah go on, nothing new there, try and divert.

Stalin's followers were not so self-centred. They were true believers in communism and were prepared to sacrifice everything for it.

Because they were culturally conditioned from a young age to accept untruths as true. By religions!!

That isn't an ideology that is arguably a byproduct of an atheist worldview?

Here you are defending monotheism and you have the gall to say that. Would be funny if it were not so sad.

Are UK readers of Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching getting together to form a political party?

Another meaningless and irrelevant question.

tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

What anthropology, sociology, the history of religion, psychology and a raft of other scientific schools give us are the presents in the closet.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean they have disproven G-d's existence.

Yeah go on, nothing new there, try and divert.

No diversion. Weren't you suggesting that Nazi Germany was religiously motivated or at least legitimatized by religion? If not, what did you mean when you said: "There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute."

Because they were culturally conditioned from a young age to accept untruths as true. By religions!!

That is your theory. Maybe people are naturally gullible regardless of religious upbringing. You calt expect anyien to take your theory seriously unless you do the experiment that rules out competing explanations.

Here you are defending monotheism

I have not defended monotheism. I have merely questioned whether you have a case against it.

and you have the gall to say that.

It is not any more unsound that an attempt to disprove the existence of G-d by drawing an analogy to Santa Clause.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry but I give up with you. No matter how many times or in how many different ways I say the same thing you just do not listen. You raise subjects and try and blow me out for giving answers, you switch the subject then blame me for doing so, you keep repeating the same old mantra that we agreed to on page 1 (I think) was not the right question. You aint going anywhere but in meaningless circles. So unless you have anything new to say I'd call this discussion at an end.


tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

You aint going anywhere but in meaningless circles.

Tao, we are now over 400 posts into this thread. I think we are closer to getting some closure than before. I'd be interested in your response to these questions:

1) Would it be fair to say that there is no controversy with respect to the possibility of settling the most basic tenet of atheism - i.e., the non-existence of G-d? Before you answer, please consider the following questions...

2) Can we agree that atheists taking the position that G-d does not exist have no more scientific credibility than theists affirming their G-d concept?

3) Would it be fair to say that atheists' central position regarding the non-existence of G-d is dogmatic in the sense that it lacks a scientific foundation?

4) Finally, would you agree that atheists who arrogate scientific legitimacy with regard to their central position are actually misleading us in this respect?

A 'yes' or 'no' to the above questions will do, thank you.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, we are now over 400 posts into this thread. I think we are closer to getting some closure than before. I'd be interested in your response to these questions:

1) Would it be fair to say that there is no controversy with respect to the possibility of settling the most basic tenet of atheism - i.e., the non-existence of G-d? Before you answer, please consider the following questions...

2) Can we agree that atheists taking the position that G-d does not exist have no more scientific credibility than theists affirming their G-d concept?

3) Would it be fair to say that atheists' central position regarding the non-existence of G-d is dogmatic in the sense that it lacks a scientific foundation?

4) Finally, would you agree that atheists who arrogate scientific legitimacy with regard to their central position are actually misleading us in this respect?

A 'yes' or 'no' to the above questions will do, thank you.

I have answered all of those questions several times already.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I have answered all of those questions several times already.

Are you saying I'm being unreasonable to ask you to be a sport and answer them again in a simple yes/no form??....

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Netti,

Here's a list of links to resources about atheism that will help you answer your questions: Atheism - Resources

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

Here is an answer:

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God. Anthony Flew.

tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

Here is an answer:

You are prepared to accept that as the answer even though the person that said it does not?

Flew has abandoned that 1984 position. He abandoned it in 2004:

MSNBC:
NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God

There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news - MSNBC.com


Here's a link to his book called "There is a God"
Amazon.com: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese: Books

 

[juantoo3]

Greymare, check out this chart:
(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:.

How many can be described as religious? How many can be described as irreligious? How many involve institutionalized religion? How many involve institutionalized atheism? Look at the body count numbers, and compare the counts that can be ascribed to institutionalized religion, to institutionalized atheism, and the irreligious ones. Look at the dates the atrocities took place, and compare the 20th century counts to the rest of history, then come to your own conclusion.

Cool chart, Seattlegal.

The only qualifier I would *have* to amend that with is the population figures as a percentage of total population. In other words, it is "easier" to have genocidal atrosities in the millions nowadays with the exponential population growth, but how would one interpret, oh, say, the disappearance of Neandertal in relation to a world population that was probably considerably less than a few million. Contrasted against any 20th century genocide in terms of percentage of population, the Neandertal genocide seems to me a pretty nasty body count, 100% dead.

I am not saying any of this to belittle any modern genocidal atrocity, but to remind that context also bears consideration if we are going to consider "worst." Considering that, such as the extinction of the San Salvadoran indians (Columbus) and the inhabitants of the Azores would seem to me to rank pretty high up there too. They were victimized 100%, no escape.

 

[juantoo3]

I stated this in regard to Stalin : "Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself." What you link to describes one of Stalins methods of watching and controlling in order to keep a stranglehold on any dissent. He saw religion as a method through which dissent could grow and did everything to counter that threat. Trying to say Stalin did what he did "in the name of Atheism" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Stalin may have technically been an Atheist but he did not do what he did in the name of Atheism.

Whoa, wait a minute.

After what you said about Hitler, you back peddle here?

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Either both are, or both are not, to be held to the same standard? Sounds like selective interpretation to me.

Trying to say Hitler did what he did "in the name of Catholism (or Christianity, your pick)" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Hitler may have technically been a Catholic but he did not do what he did in the name of Catholicism.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

I'm not Netti, but I would say that is pretty close to where I am at. And from what I gather about Tao's GAIA theory, it sounds pretty close to what I understand him to be saying, *too*.

I am open to correction though on this last part.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm not Netti, but I would say that is pretty close to where I am at. And from what I gather about Tao's GAIA theory, it sounds pretty close to what I understand him to be saying, *too*.

I am open to correction though on this last part.

Yeah, me too Juan.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.

*and*

There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.

~Niels Bohr​

You never cease to amaze me, Seattlegal!

 

[Netti-Netti]

Either both are, or both are not, to be held to the same standard? Sounds like selective interpretation to me.

Trying to say Hitler did what he did "in the name of Catholism (or Christianity, your pick)" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Hitler may have technically been a Catholic but he did not do what he did in the name of Catholicism.

The ideology invoked in connection with an action may be merely the cover story.

It troubles me that religions may have been given a bad name by people who didn't even believe. Arguably, if they did truly believe, they would have acted differently.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Flew said: "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins." Actually, karmic reactions can be separated from G-d Himself. They are generated by individual wrongdoing. It can be seen as an impersonal mechanism rather than as an expression of a vengeful deity: "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

Flew went on: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Yes, I suppose.

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

It doesn't sound especially different from a fairly traditional G-d concept. Certainly the G-d of the Abrahamic religions was intelligent and purposeful.