Page 11 of 16

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:58 am
by Superstitious Fool
mkaobrih wrote:Iā€™d have to believe in so many things. To join us you would just have to be yourself.
No, I would have to disbelieve in some things. Disbelieving (as opposed to not believing) in those things would be just as difficult for me.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:07 am
by mkaobrih
Fair enough ā€“ do whatever gives you comfort.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:12 am
by inedifix
Superstitious Fool wrote:Others, including me, are not sure all the time or even most of the time. When I do have doubts, however, I have always so far decided, based on what I have seen, read and heard, that faith is much more plausible than atheism.
Do you really mean plausible? or perhaps "comfortable" or "personally acceptable"?

If you do mean plausible, please explain how a supernatural and unknowable explanation for what you don't know, is more plausible than a natural but undiscovered explanation for what you don't know.
Superstitious Fool wrote:No, I would have to disbelieve in some things. Disbelieving (as opposed to not believing) in those things would be just as difficult for me.
Atheism doesn't require active disbelief god anymore than you need active disbelief in Santa Claus. I don't go about "not-believing-in-god" all the time. When I look at the rain, I see rain. I don't have to tell myself that it's not sent by god.

So you don't need to disbelieve in anything Michael. All that is required of you is to accept the natural world around you for what it is, and to treat what you don't or cannot know... as what you don't or cannot know.

I

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:34 am
by FXR
Superstitious Fool wrote:
CelticAtheist wrote:The balance of probabilities is heavily against
gods existence..
How? Please answer with empirical evidence.
I'd love to answer that Mick, but I'm way too busy.
In response to a pagan I'm out looking for empirical evidence that when the shaft of sunlight enters Newgrange it's not actually an ancient Irish mammoth mating with the Earth Tortoise.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:42 am
by FXR
Superstitious Fool wrote:
mkaobrih wrote:Superstitious Fool, you seem like a decent person ā€“ why not come over to our side ā€“ were not that bad and their is no guilt associated with us.
No, you come over here. We're OK too and we have no guilt either. You seem to have an idea of us that has nothing to do with reality.

The Magdelene Laundries, The Indemnity Deal, The Sadistic Christian Brothers, The Crawthumpers, The Subversion of Children, The Scaring of children with Hell, Limbo oops no Limbo (sorry upset parents), Tax Free Stauts, Monumental Hypocrisy.............

It was all just a bad dream?

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:52 pm
by inedifix
Hi Frank,

I think what Michael means when he says...
Superstitious Fool wrote:We're OK too and we have no guilt either.
... is, "We go to confession, therefore we have no guilt." The auld weekly get out of guilt free card. "Slander, avarice, working on Sundays, a little bit of illegal groping... no problem, you're a Catholic, you go to confession, you're okay! Yay, Jesus!"

I

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:51 pm
by CelticAtheist
Superstitious Fool wrote:
CelticAtheist wrote:The balance of probabilities is heavily against
gods existence..
How? Please answer with empirical evidence.
A Catholic asking for empirical evidence?
We may be winning after all.

Here's the massively condensed and vastly incomplete list that myself and a few others came up with. Look forward to your response.

Logical:
- Deities always in a recognisable form
(i.e. always human, animal, a natural occurrence, or a mix of them)
- Deities always in a familiar form
(i.e. you wouldn't see a horse deity in Mesoamerican civilisation pre-Cortez)
- Rules set by deities are always a reflection of the times and geographical location in which they originated.
(i.e. Sexism in Abrahamic religions)
- Arguments for non-interventionalist deities are hypocritical.
(i.e. if deities don't do anything to our world, then how could we possibly know about them?)
- All religions postulating a deity prohibit critical analysis of both the religion and its god. Its a fairly effective maintaining control / power.
(ie no rational thought tolerated, leading to heresy or apostacy charges)
- Gender of deities
(i.e. divine beings having genders)
- Deities never present any new information that the people at the time couldn't have known. (i.e. the deities' level of knowledge/technology is always on par with the time in which it was first worshipped)
- Deities presenting themselves as apparitions never appear before people who have never known of them before.
(The Abrahamic God never appeared before an Aztec..)
- Deities never write their holy books themselves, they leave them to be written by human "witnesses".

Historical:
- Diversity of deities and the number of deities (per religion) throughout history and prehistory.
- The "dying out" of the worship of some deities.
(i.e. surely a god would be able to maintain their worshippers!)
- Rules set by deities inconsequential to actions of humans in real terms.
(i.e. Theists have killed people without divine upheaval.)
- Holy books written by humans, filled with human concepts and morals.
(i.e. 10 commandments, why would a deity be interested in your property?)
- Despite always representing "good", religion has caused many "bad" events across history. (i.e. Irish stagnation, religious warfare.)

Anthropological/Scientific:
- Laws of Physics
- Homo sapiens not the first species on the planet to practice religion.
(Substantial evidence for Middle Paleolithic species).
- Non-homo genus species do not heed deities.
(As evolution effectively proves we are all made of the same "stuff", why would we pay heed to deities?)
- Evolutionary theory
- Chemical/Atomic theory
- The Big Bang theory
- Panspermia/exogenesis
- Genetics

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:46 pm
by Superstitious Fool
FXR wrote:The Magdelene Laundries, The Indemnity Deal, The Sadistic Christian Brothers, The Crawthumpers, The Subversion of Children, The Scaring of children with Hell, Limbo oops no Limbo (sorry upset parents), Tax Free Stauts, Monumental Hypocrisy.............
The incarnation, birth, life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ...

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:30 am
by ravinggobshite
Superstitious Fool wrote:
FXR wrote:The Magdelene Laundries, The Indemnity Deal, The Sadistic Christian Brothers, The Crawthumpers, The Subversion of Children, The Scaring of children with Hell, Limbo oops no Limbo (sorry upset parents), Tax Free Stauts, Monumental Hypocrisy.............
The incarnation, birth, life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ...
Sorry you've lost me there. Please elaborate.

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:00 am
by FXR
Superstitious Fool wrote:
FXR wrote:The Magdelene Laundries, The Indemnity Deal, The Sadistic Christian Brothers, The Crawthumpers, The Subversion of Children, The Scaring of children with Hell, Limbo oops no Limbo (sorry upset parents), Tax Free Stauts, Monumental Hypocrisy.............
The incarnation, birth, life, passion, death and resurrection of Christ...

Oh and I almost forgot:
Perpetuating the totally ant-human idea that voluntary suffering is praiseworthy and indoctrinating one generation of children after another into the cult of suffering.
Then they compound that by brainwashing people into the irrational idea that they owe a debt to someone who died for them in the Iron Age.

Then for centuries they illogically promote the even more irrational idea that the mythical man/god who died on humanitys behalf should be praised for still being alive after a three day holiday and has six billion people under surveillance daily while managing to avoid all means of detection know to man.
A zombie who does not exist, save for within the tutored and misled imaginations that have fallen victim to its psycho ops war on humanity.

Thanks for reminding me! :wink:

Thanks for reminding me.