Creationist wins a debate

Post Reply New Topic

No, you should never stop demanding evidence in any direction, and that goes for the theist as well. The problem is that we at least entertain doubt every once in a while, and there is almost none of it amongst those who are certain that a God does not exist. What you should stop demanding is a proof. Hate Judaism all you want for introducing to the world the concept of something existing beyond the natural world, that is unnatural/supernatural. But it is here, and every person no matter their persuasion should entertain the possibility philosophically.

You should never stop trying to recruit people to atheism either, and this is coming from a theist. There is a battlefield of ideas, and to simply remove yourself from it won't stop others from competing for the hearts and minds of the masses. I am all for christians evangelizing and I even support them evangelizing to me, a non christian. I don't know if you can observe this lecture I attended by Peter Boghossian, but many people in the front row rooting in support of him are atheists he has transformed in prison.

The only thing we should care about is whether something is true or not. And be open to debate and entertain possibilities. From morals to the earth being 6000 years old.

Oh, sorry, the lecture I mentioned in my last post:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaPXtZpzBw[/youtube]

I'm open to the idea of god. My openness to that idea is why I want proof. The existence of god would make my life so much easier, it would give me something larger than myself to believe in. If there was solid, tangible evidence for the existence of god, I'd be one of the first converts.

I am not, however, willing to accept the misrepresentation of facts. For example, the earth is not six thousand years old. That isn't open for debate, it's simply wrong. I am not open to the idea that evolution doesn't occur. It can be observed to happen, both in present day and through the fossil record, the process of evolution is a fact.

Come back to me when you have some facts on your side. Until then, leave everybody else alone.

When We Revise Ourselves
Well the question you ask is the same one that Galileo asked. Galileo acknowledged that while the book of Gods words may be inerrant, it may be misinterpreted by the priestly class assigned to interpret it. You are expected in Judaism to never suspend your intellect when approaching God. The churches response is the one we should take today, and unfortunately, should have been the one people should have always taken. When we can say otherwise, is when we can and should say otherwise.

If people misinterpret the text and source science from it(when the text never intended that), and it has been proven otherwise, we should make the case to them that the earth is not 6000 years old, and if they don't accept, then that's unfortunate but we move on continue living our life as they will in absence of your discovery. Judaism never posits the age of the earth.


Tread Sensitively.
Do note you do nothing but dismiss God as a fairy tale, and when someone engages you on your thoughts, you feel harassed? You, and everyone else? Am I infringing on just ideas or there something personal I am crossing here? A little back and forth respect could/would be nice. You have a right to believe what you believe. You do realize there are people on this forum who do not believe God is a fairy tale?

I don't mean to bully if thats what you are suggesting but do not treat "religious people are delusional" or "God is a fairy tale" as a cheap throw away line. Some of us are not only religious, but we are offended by such dismissals that are core to our personhood. Just because they or I can't articulate themselves does not give you any right to trample all over their belief. Even if you stick to my "something is either true, or it isn't" principle, be sensitive to know when you are stepping on someone else, and be comfortable that others believe what they do. I entertain every notion, from atheism to hinduism to fascism to incest. The autistic, schizophrenic, dyslexic, dyscalculic mind knows no bounds, and has no fences.

You are not... you are not comfortable with people who do not accept that the earth is round or that it is older then 6000 years, and in doing so, you are no more tolerant then a salafi or a westbro baptist.

@ MarketAndChurch

You have a point, some atheists are functionally militant "fundamentalists" in that they know The Truth

I think the value of toleration in the contexts you're talking about is areas of civil disagreement, or variations in humanity. Not in accepting stupid beliefs. So, I am not comfortable with ideas that moronic, and I believe that those ideas need to be suppressed as mercilessly as possible while still respecting freedom of speech and behaving with honesty. This is the correct way to handle the situation.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9izVu_TtAE&feature=related[/youtube]

Even if they don't know the answer, they have faith in the scientific process's ability to find a logical and rational explanation. And are willing to supplement a rational explanation in place of "we just don't know at this point" lest anyone loose faith in the systems ability to produce.

Well I am curious. Is praying to an unseeable unknowable untouchable, moronic? Is believing in an afterlife moronic? Worth suppressing mercilessly?

So am I and I am a Godless atheist.

Well that is interesting. Christopher Hitchens was once asked that during his debate with David Berlinski to defend Sam Harris's comment: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them?"


And he did:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/DoesAt


I fully agree with Hitchens by the way, but Sam is a bit more strident, if not more crass.

Well, the idea, that ideas can be dangerous, could itself be considered a dangerous idea

You seem to be misusing that word. If an atheist insists in telling you his opinion and trying to make you change yours, that's not a militant atheist. That's an atheist evangelist (in the actual meaning of the word, the atheist wants to "convert" you). A militant atheist would be the sort of people bombing churches or something.

No.

There are two definitions of "fundamentalist" that you could be meaning to use:
- A person that is dead set on following a law that is written. It would make no sense to call an atheist this.

- A person that will not change his/her mind about something regardless of evidence to the contrary. Since there is no evidence for god or a group of gods. Then no fundamentalist atheists exist.

Well, what is the evidence for any of this? Is this evidence explicable by other simpler hypotheses?(assuming some exists) Are these notions sensible given our background knowledge on how the world actually works?

I mean, my answer is that there isn't good evidence on the first question. On the second question, the "evidence" we do have is usually much better explained by other ideas. And on the third question, my answer is that these notions are rather silly given the background knowledge that exists about how minds, agents, and all the rest work.

So, yes, I would promote suppressing them through the methods that are honest, legitimate, and compatible with free speech. So, railing against an idea is an effort to prevent people from being lured into it, and that's ok, so long as it's done correctly.

However, if you'd like to contest my claims then you're free to do so. I may or may not respond. If I don't respond, it's because I generally regard apologetics as insane and have found my engagements with it frustrating and the proponents of it to tend towards dishonesty of absurdity.

Well said. Also, as I and others have found in recent threads here, it can be very frustrating to try to reason with people who ignore, deny or distort what evidence pertains to the discussion.

I have to hurry to bestbuy to get a spot in line but I will reply in full, tomorrow unless my plans change. I have recently gotten into apologetics material, largely from catholic and protestant sources, I can say that they don't have a case. I have to rely fully on my judaism because its the only rational point of view I can argue from.