|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 15, 2009 22:04:06 GMT -5
Many fundies I know will probably just say that it's all "god's will" and we shouldn't question it.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Aug 16, 2009 10:17:44 GMT -5
I don't care how much proof they have. If I have to become a prejudiced, bigoted prick, I'm not converting. I have enough hate in my heart for certain people based on their specific actions. I draw the line, though, at hating peope just because they're different. If I have to go to Hell for that, so be it. At least I know Lucifer is keeping the seat warm for me. Just to be clear, I, for one, never said that if someone were able to prove to me that their god exists that I would worship it, especially if it is the Christian god of the Bible. I have a very difficult time getting past the rampant cruelty, murder, hatred, and egocentricity displayed by and/or for him. I would merely acknowledge his existence. It would then be up to him or one of his followers to convince me that he isn't the absolute asshole depicted in the Bible. God of love, my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 16, 2009 10:21:46 GMT -5
I don't care how much proof they have. If I have to become a prejudiced, bigoted prick, I'm not converting. I have enough hate in my heart for certain people based on their specific actions. I draw the line, though, at hating peope just because they're different. If I have to go to Hell for that, so be it. At least I know Lucifer is keeping the seat warm for me. Just to be clear, I, for one, never said that if someone were able to prove to me that their god exists that I would worship it, especially if it is the Christian god of the Bible. I have a very difficult time getting past the rampant cruelty, murder, hatred, and egocentricity displayed by and/or for him. I would merely acknowledge his existence. It would then be up to him or one of his followers to convince me that he isn't the absolute asshole depicted in the Bible. God of love, my ass. Inner Fundie: See! Atheists are just running from God! They rebel so that they can do whatever they want &-- *Hides a script behind his back.*
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Aug 16, 2009 10:29:13 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I, for one, never said that if someone were able to prove to me that their god exists that I would worship it, especially if it is the Christian god of the Bible. I have a very difficult time getting past the rampant cruelty, murder, hatred, and egocentricity displayed by and/or for him. I would merely acknowledge his existence. It would then be up to him or one of his followers to convince me that he isn't the absolute asshole depicted in the Bible. God of love, my ass. Inner Fundie: See! Atheists are just running from God! They rebel so that they can do whatever they want &-- *Hides a script behind his back.* A script? A SCRIPT?! Your inner fundie is a disgrace. What would Ray Comfort say?
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Aug 16, 2009 11:42:13 GMT -5
Inner Fundie: See! Atheists are just running from God! They rebel so that they can do whatever they want &-- *Hides a script behind his back.* A script? A SCRIPT?! Your inner fundie is a disgrace. What would Ray Comfort say? But, see, that is the problem. Everything they say and all their arguments are scripted. They can't think for themselves or else they would see the gapping holes in their "logic" (and I'm using that term very loosely here.)
|
|
|
Post by Einherjer on Aug 16, 2009 12:54:29 GMT -5
Added to that in the first post, I would need to see a realistic and logical explanation about why there are apparently three or four conflicting accounts about the death and resurrection of Jesus in the very same holy text that they claim is infallible. And as long as we are talking about conflicting information, all of the contradictions in the bible need to be explained.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Aug 16, 2009 17:01:12 GMT -5
I would ask them to respond to the following indirect philosophical criticisms, gleaned from Wikipedia: - One need not invoke the supernatural when appreciating the beautiful: flowers are beautiful, but they can be understood in a naturalist framework.
- A wise person need not be perfect.
- Consciousness need not forever belong outside the range of human understanding, as neuroscience and neuro-psychology have made great strides in understanding consciousness in terms of well-grounded, naturalistic knowledge.
- One need not ascribe a 'cause' or a 'reason' to every event: events can occur spontaneously.
- For some given quality, there need not be an object which possesses that quality in the maximal degree: e.g., there is not necessarily a 'hottest' thing just because some things are hotter than other things.
- A person's desire need not stem from a real entity.
- Spiritual and rapturous experiences need not be scientifically inexplicable: altered states of consciousness have in fact been categorised by various psychologists.
- Love, central though it may be to the human condition, need not be inexplicable using naturalistic methods.
- Modern-day miracles may often explained or refuted using the scientific method; religious miracles need not have happened for those who do not believe in them.
- People with similar religious backgrounds need not have similar moral codes, people with different religious backgrounds need not have moral codes that differ, and people with no religious background need not act immorally: e.g., people in other countries, for the most part, act in accordance with one's own moral code, even when it is impossible for them to have been influenced by it.
- One can easily conceive of entities which need not exist.
- If two people have different religious beliefs, the one need not concern for the divine punishment prescribed for heretics in the religion of the other.
- One empirically irrefutable claim need not be any more basic than another.
- One need not ascribe rationality to an unphysical source simply because it is only observed in people.
- Explanations need not be deterministic: many processes occur without apparent direction and purpose.
- A formal system's consistency/completeness need not be provable.
- What any given source says about something need not be true.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Aug 16, 2009 19:56:39 GMT -5
For some given quality, there need not be an object which possesses that quality in the maximal degree: e.g., there is not necessarily a 'hottest' thing just because some things are hotter than other things. I agree with most of the list, but this jumped at me. Given a non-infinite number of objects with varying temperatures, there is indeed need for one to be the hottest. Or at least, a group of several with the same temperature that are the hottest. I'm not sure if that was just a poor example, but it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 16, 2009 20:19:11 GMT -5
Maybe it means hottest possible? Frankly, I'm not so sure about the "events can occur spontaneously" thing.
In any case, I'm curious as to what article those came from.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Aug 17, 2009 23:24:19 GMT -5
Each bullet point is a summary of the refutation corresponding to each proof of the existence of God found on Wikipedia, in order.
Also, the example was ambiguously worded: it refers to the idea of there not necessarily being a "greatest" temperature, even though we can conceive of the relative hotness of various objects, and even though there is an infimum to the temperature scale. It "refutes" the consideration of God as the greatest in all qualities, in the sense that certain quantifiable need not be bounded from above. On the other hand, any finite, totally ordered system has a greatest element.
As to the spontaneity of things, look at the decay of nuclei: although, on average, nuclei decay at a constant rate, there is no apparent "reason" for any nucleus to "choose" when it decays. This is a distillation of the argument against the cosmological argument for God.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Aug 18, 2009 13:56:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see what you mean now. Could've used better wording, but it's right.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 19, 2009 12:26:46 GMT -5
Wait, Wikipedia has an argument about "proof of God"? Say it isn't so!
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Aug 21, 2009 6:12:03 GMT -5
Wait, Wikipedia has an argument about "proof of God"? Say it isn't so! It is more informational and a listing of the "proofs" that have been espoused rather than an actual argument for God's existence. Check it out yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Aug 21, 2009 19:19:56 GMT -5
- Why would God need to kill his own son to forgive mankind's sins, when he could do so himself with a wave of his hand? That's a good question. It gets worse: This son of God is also God. He is his own father. To me it looks like God is showing off again. In the old testament, God was big in genocide and being mean. The NT God is seemingly completely selfless, and sacrifices himself to himself, so that he can forgive humans. Makes no sense at all, and remember: This is the very core of christianity.
|
|