Disproving the Existence of God

[six45ive]

If quote 2 is to do with my atheist communist russian state atrocities example, then I'd have to say that, when it comes to comparing believers with atheists, it's important to be rational and fair when attributing causes and consequences.

 

i.e. if someone's going to insist that the atrocities committed upon religious believers by Russia, was nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they were atheists (which, personally, I would be inclined to agree with); then, when it comes to atrocities committed by religious groups, it's somewhat irrational to automatically say the cause is down to their religious beliefs.

 

(As for what is the cause in those 2 cases, I've previously put forward my view that it is human nature- when humans are put in power in certain circumstances, they tend to behave like monsters and, they will do so in the name of whatever grand cause is available, whether that be religious belief or some kind of abstract social vision etc)

 

IMO, the only reason we haven't seen more state atrocities committed by atheist rulers, is that, historically, there haven't been any states ruled by atheists in a position to committ atrocites (other than the recent example of Russia).

 

The problem that you have is the skewed thinking that means you talk about atheism as though it's an ideology. The thing you seem to have difficulty in understanding is that failed socialist states like Stalin's Russia and North Korea are pseudo religious states that have human demi gods at their head as opposed to the imaginary kind.

If you wish to compare like with like then I suggest you compare a modern theocracy (where the majority of people follow a religion) with a modern secular state (where the majority of people don't follow a religion).

PS I'm talking about socially as opposed to politically re people following, or not following, any particular religion.

[flamingjimmy]

What events could change your mind (about wether rationality could be flawed)?

 

I don't really know, short of god appearing before me and telling me so. That would probably do it. Like I said, it would take a lot to convince me that reason is not the best tool we have for determining truth. Perhaps some sort of entirely irrational experience, although like I said it would have to be very impressive (ie. not just some ordinary everyday out of body experience or NDE) and I'd probably want other people there to experience the same thing so I know I'm not crazy.

 

Things I would accept as strong pointers that irrationality doesn't work but not necessarily proof would be for example: If you proved that Yahweh actually existed as described in the bible. If you could prove to me that human's have non-physical 'souls'. In fact if you managed to convince me that metaphysics isn't just a synonym for 'nonsense' then that'd be a great start.

 

Anyway, I like the socratic method and all, but it can get a little annoying when someone seemingly ignores all of your own questions and most of your responses and just moves the goalposts asking new questions with every post.

 

Do you think that rationality is flawed? If so why?

[Grahame]

I don't really know, short of god appearing before me and telling me so. That would probably do it. Like I said, it would take a lot to convince me that reason is not the best tool we have for determining truth. Perhaps some sort of entirely irrational experience, although like I said it would have to be very impressive (ie. not just some ordinary everyday out of body experience or NDE) and I'd probably want other people there to experience the same thing so I know I'm not crazy.

 

Things I would accept as strong pointers that irrationality doesn't work but not necessarily proof would be for example: If you proved that Yahweh actually existed as described in the bible. If you could prove to me that human's have non-physical 'souls'. In fact if you managed to convince me that metaphysics isn't just a synonym for 'nonsense' then that'd be a great start.

 

Anyway, I like the socratic method and all, but it can get a little annoying when someone seemingly ignores all of your own questions and most of your responses and just moves the goalposts asking new questions with every post.

 

Do you think that rationality is flawed? If so why?

 

"reason is not the best tool we have for determining truth." (Jimmy)

 

You're doing philosophy aren't you?

 

 

[quisquose]

If quote 2 is to do with my atheist communist russian state atrocities example, then I'd have to say that, when it comes to comparing believers with atheists, it's important to be rational and fair when attributing causes and consequences.

 

i.e. if someone's going to insist that the atrocities committed upon religious believers by Russia, was nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they were atheists (which, personally, I would be inclined to agree with); then, when it comes to atrocities committed by religious groups, it's somewhat irrational to automatically say the cause is down to their religious beliefs.

 

(As for what is the cause in those 2 cases, I've previously put forward my view that it is human nature- when humans are put in power in certain circumstances, they tend to behave like monsters and, they will do so in the name of whatever grand cause is available, whether that be religious belief or some kind of abstract social vision etc)

 

IMO, the only reason we haven't seen more state atrocities committed by atheist rulers, is that, historically, there haven't been any states ruled by atheists in a position to committ atrocites (other than the recent example of Russia).

 

As I have repeatedly tried to point out, theism and atheism, faiyism and afairyism, ufoism and aufoism, bigfootism and abigfootism, etc, are not ideologies.

 

Christianity, Socialism, Islam, Nazism, Humanism, Communism, Vegetarianism, etc, are ideologies.

 

The latter can motivate actions and behaviour, the former cannot.

[Grahame]

As I have repeatedly tried to point out, theism and atheism, faiyism and afairyism, ufoism and aufoism, bigfootism and abigfootism, etc, are not ideologies.

 

Christianity, Socialism, Islam, Nazism, Humanism, Communism, Vegetarianism, etc, are ideologies.

 

The latter can motivate actions and behaviour, the former cannot.

 

When I go onto Atheist Ireland they have an agenda as long as your arm and their 'beliefs' (can't think of a better word) are what motivates them.

 

 

[quisquose]

When I go onto Atheist Ireland they have an agenda as long as your arm and their 'beliefs' (can't think of a better word) are what motivates them.

 

But that's Atheist Ireland with an agenda as long as your arm, it isn't atheism. I'm an atheist, I may agree with some of the agenda of Atheist Ireland and I may disagree with some of it, just as I might agree with some of the teachings of Jesus and I might disagree with some. My athiesm does not motivate me in any way whatsoever.

 

Ditto your dislike of homosexuality. It's not your theism that motivates your dislike, it might be your Christianity or simply your own opinion.

[plekhanov]

That post was about the fact that the Russian Communist state was run by atheists who believed religion to be evil and, who actively tried to destroy it by oppressing, imprisoning, torturing and executing those who practiced it.

 

At no point did I suggest that such behaviour is characteristic of all or the majority of atheists.

 

The point was made in response to implications that atheists, somehow, are immune to the possibility of carrying out the violent oppression that some religious organisations have.

 

It was also raised as a counterpoint to another suggestion that, historically, all such violence had been performed in the name of religion- the Communist Russian state was simply an example of a non-religious organisation that carried out atrocities (against believers, in this case).

 

You amy not like the example, but, it's a rational example that, in the context it was made (in response to those specific points), was, IMO, highly relevant

Liar you declared:

 

"More recently however, we have had a society based on atheism and can assess whether an athiestic society is necessarily more tolerant and less aggressive/oppressive than religious ones.

 

That society was communist Russia with it's policy of state atheism- was it more tolerant?"

 

Your absurd charge that the Soviet Union was "based upon atheism" was the 11th post in a thread in which there had been no "suggestion that, historically, all such violence had been performed in the name of religion" nor had anyone implied that atheists "are immune to the possibility of carrying out the violent oppression that some religious organisations have".

 

Your argument that the USSR was 'abased upon atheism' was anything but rational and the your excuses for making such a slanderous attack upon atheism are nothing but lies. Such behaviour is typical of how you approach atheists and atheism and a prime reason why you're delusional if you think us 'new atheists' will take adivce from you about how to conduct ourselves.

 

As for would-be cultural censors- it's my belief that both state violence/atrocites and cultural censorship, are a matter more of human nature than religious belief/non-belief.

 

i.e. people in power in certain circumstances end up behaving like immoral monsters- historically, that has been mainly those who do it in the name of religion: but, it's my contention that this is only because, historically, religious belief was endemic- there were no atheist states.

 

If atheists were in similar positions of power, in similar circumstances, I belief they would be equally as prone to excess, due, not to their lack of religious belief, but, due to their human nature.

This latest bit of squirming just doesn't hold up for a number of reasons.

 

1. There is a direct logical line between many theists beliefs and coercive acts including censoring art. In contrast there is no logical line between not believing in gods and doing anything.
   
2. As has already been pointed out "Dawkins supporters (and possibly Dawkins himself" who you attempted to depict as would be censors are a broadly liberal lot. My unscientific surveys of us suggest anger at theistic attacks upon the rights of women, homosexuals and free speech are the prime causes of people becoming active 'new atheists'. As such becoming censors as you bizarrely claim we want to would go directly against one of our prime reasons for our activism.
   
3. Given that the only thing that unites 'new atheists' aside from generally being in favour of liberal democracy is being opposed to theistic attacks upon people's basic rights your attempt to depict us as a group that could seize power "in certain circumstances" and "end up behaving like immoral monsters" is beyond silly. There's simply no way a group consisting of socialists to libertarians, Green, Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative party activists could ever seize power as the things which divide us on pretty much every aspect of social and economic policy far outweigh the single issue we do agree on.
   

The more you try and defend your most recent slanderous attack the more it becomes clear that you are once again trying to conflate atheists with Stalinists.

 

Do you often find that people who you keep on trying to depict as Stalinists take advice from you?

[redwhine]

I don't really know, short of god appearing before me and telling me so. That would probably do it. Like I said, it would take a lot to convince me that reason is not the best tool we have for determining truth. Perhaps some sort of entirely irrational experience, although like I said it would have to be very impressive (ie. not just some ordinary everyday out of body experience or NDE) and I'd probably want other people there to experience the same thing so I know I'm not crazy.

 

Things I would accept as strong pointers that irrationality doesn't work but not necessarily proof would be for example: If you proved that Yahweh actually existed as described in the bible. If you could prove to me that human's have non-physical 'souls'. In fact if you managed to convince me that metaphysics isn't just a synonym for 'nonsense' then that'd be a great start.

 

Anyway, I like the socratic method and all, but it can get a little annoying when someone seemingly ignores all of your own questions and most of your responses and just moves the goalposts asking new questions with every post.

 

Do you think that rationality is flawed? If so why?

 

(My bold/red.)

 

"reason is not the best tool we have for determining truth." (Jimmy)

 

You're doing philosophy aren't you?

Grahame, you despicability knows no bounds.

 

That shameless quote mine completely reverses the sense of the original post.

 

Yet you refuse to apologise to me for falsely accusing me of misquoting you, and demand that I apologise to you even though I never even quoted you in the first place.. (Truth be told you don't actually refuse. You just ignore the situation hoping it will go away, and carry on spewing out bile.) You are a total hypocrite. I almost wish there were a god, so he could refuse you entry to heaven for your shameless and sinful (...by your own 'standards') behaviour.

 

Have you no shame?

[Mecky]

I challenge God to make himself known in person to the entirely world, then people can decide if they want to follow him or not. Until he does that he doesn't not exist.

[Grahame]

I challenge God to make himself known in person to the entirely world, then people can decide if they want to follow him or not. Until he does that he doesn't not exist.

 

You won't understand what a profound statement that is.