|
Post by pim on Jan 3, 2017 17:02:05 GMT 10
One reason: theism is delusional. Now, obviously it is a common delusion, spanning tens of thousands of years. I shared the Christian delusion myself for some years. Many people have decided, given all the available evidence for and against, that "gods" are not real. I'm one of those who have decided that all gods, including the "one" I used to believe in are in fact false. But again, this "argument" will never end ... there is no "proof" either way. All I can offer is that the weight of evidence is in favour of gods being an invention of humans. I am convinced that evolution is real, hence humans are not in my view, a "special" animal that is the only animal "designed" for the sole purpose of having a conversation with an imagined "creator" being. Will atheism eventually dominate within the human species? Who knows? We can look back over history and see numerous "gods" come and go ... how long will the "god" of Christianity / Islam remain in the belief system of humans? Who knows? Perhaps that belief will remain until human extinction. Perhaps other gods will be invented, or perhaps theism will die out completely. I do think human extinction is inevitable, so perhaps theism will end at that time. I think you've answered Occam's challenge to provide a "defensible" reason for atheism in the sense that you could "defend" the case that you make in your post. Mind you I don't think you've made the definitive knock-'em-out-of-the-ballpark case for atheism that would win you a Nobel prize for philosophy (is there such an award?) but that wasn't Occam's challenge. I agree with you - what agnostic wouldn't! - that nothing can be proved either way and I think that your implied argument that if you're going to talk about "proof" then the onus of proof lies with the theists is a fair debating point. Providing you don't just leave it at that! I hate the word "theist" and I try to avoid it as much as possible. But that's another debate. Back to the "onus of proof" argument: personally I think it shares the same weakness as Occam's "first cause" argument for the existence of God. Just as Occam's "first cause" (actually it was Thomas Aquinas who first put forward that argument but let's not quibble) is really an argument for a "God of the (scientific) gaps", the "onus of proof" argument against the existence of God is essentially the same argument in reverse. The one is the flip side of the other. Where both arguments end up being sterile and fruitless for me is that each one assumes that it's a scientific question and I think it goes far far deeper. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - or mine for that matter, or anyone's. Having said that, I reject utterly the notion that religious faith is "delusional". You're entitled to disagree with religious faith and indeed to reject it out of hand. But that doesn't entitle you to sneer at people of faith that they are "delusional". Was Martin Luther King Jr "delusional"? Desmond Tutu? Friedrich Bonhoeffer? Sophie Scholl? Mahatma Gandhi? Cardinal Mindszenty? Or for that matter Pope John Paul 2? Billy Graham? I don't necessarily agree with all of these people or even admire them. The last two in particular I have decidedly mixed feelings about! But they were/are (I think two of them are still alive) all people of great intelligence and depth. All of them exercised a lot of influence over their fellow human beings - in a good way - and the wellspring of this power and influence was their religious faith. In several of the above cases their faith necessitated suffering - even death. You don't have to agree with them. And no their lives don't provide the type of testimony that would make an atheist change his mind. But don't call them "delusional". That’s hubris of the worst sort.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 3, 2017 19:41:44 GMT 10
Not hard at all. I think the difficulty is yours. You see Hubris Man, it really is possible to see the other guy's point of view ... and still disagree with him
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 3, 2017 20:21:08 GMT 10
Nah, it's simpler than that.
Some people are both gullible AND unable to stand on their own two feet, so lean on the crutch of religion, while developing a god delusion inside their head.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 9:19:59 GMT 10
Sophie Scholl was a German citizen who was an anti Nazi activist who was part of the White Rose resistance movement within Germany during the Nazi regime. The courage of these people can be only dimly understood by people like us in our comfort zones. I don't have the time to give even a thumbnail sketch of this woman's story but simply by googling her name you'll get any number of sources that will tell you her story. Suffice it to say she was arrested and charged with "Hochverrat" or high treason. She was found guilty in a Nazi show trial that was a grotesque travesty of justice, and was guillotined. She'd engaged in peaceful non-violent resistance to the Nazis. My understanding is that she was arrested for printing and handing out leaflets critical of the Nazi regime. The story goes that after her execution copies of her leaflets were smuggled into Britain and the RAF subsequently dropped millions of copies all over Germany. She's not well-known outside Germany but within Germany - to a nation that badly wanted absolution as the true picture of the Nazi horrors emerged - her story is seen to be proof that there was heroic German resistance to Hitler. Consequently throughout Germany today there are lots of public buildings such as schools and hospitals that are named after Sophie Scholl.
So far, so heroic. What about the "deluded" bit? The religious faith that motivated her and gave her the courage to take on the Nazis in that peaceful non-violent way that kinda makes her the Gandhi of Germany? At no time did this show itself more than at her trial which the Nazis intended should showcase their "National Socialist" values and expose what they saw as the pampered privilege of these middle class students who bit the Nazi hand that had fed them. This was a bad mistake on the part of the Nazis because it gave Sophie Scholl a platform from which she could mount her own devastating critique of the whole rotten and morally bankrupt Nazi edifice. Which she proceded to do by counterposing her Christian faith, and the values that arise from that Christian faith, to expose the moral obscenity of Hitlerism. In so doing she completely turned the tables on the Nazis and went to her death a moral giant. The Germans owe Sophie Scholl, big time. Angela Merkel invokes her name regularly.
You can dismiss Sophie Scholl as "delusional". Personally I find that a monstrous thing to do. To dismiss the moral heroism of that woman for whom Christianity was the wellspring of her heroism and moral compass as "deluded" is as grotesque as it it is offensive. The Nazis would love you for it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 9:47:12 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 10:20:35 GMT 10
Indian concepts of its national identity owe so much to the gibberings of this deluded man that they erected this national shrine to him ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 10:24:45 GMT 10
The United States were so inspired by the ravings of this deluded man that there are monuments to him everywhere and they even dedicated a public holiday in his honour ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 10:32:44 GMT 10
Tourists flock to get their pictures taken next to the statue of this deluded man in Cape Town. For a black man to take on the apartheid state and, like Sophie Scholl in her defiance of the Nazis, offer a non-violent Christian critique of apartheid, was pretty devastating - to the racists and their police state! But he was deluded, wasn't he?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 4, 2017 16:14:51 GMT 10
Mad King Ludwig, yes he was deluded!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 17:04:00 GMT 10
Und die Geschwister Scholl? Auch voller Illusionen?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 4, 2017 20:09:45 GMT 10
Jeder der an einen Gott glaubt leidet von Illusionen. Da muss man wirklich dumm seinen wenn man an so einen Quatsch glaubt.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 4, 2017 22:56:20 GMT 10
Also Deiner Meinung nach ist Sophie Scholl mit dem wahnsinnigen Bayerischen König Ludwig zu vergleichen, weil ihr Widerspruch dem Nazismus auf christlichen Prinzipien beruht war.
Das ist wirklich schade, daß Du solch ein zweifelhaftes Argument vorbringst.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 5, 2017 16:21:41 GMT 10
Also Deiner Meinung nach ist Sophie Scholl mit dem wahnsinnigen Bayerischen König Ludwig zu vergleichen, weil ihr Widerspruch dem Nazismus auf christlichen Prinzipien beruht war. Das ist wirklich schade, daß Du solch ein zweifelhaftes Argument vorbringst. Das habe ich nicht gesagt. Man kann auf Gott glauben und ein guter Mensch sein.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 5, 2017 16:22:26 GMT 10
Das Gespräch mit etwas, das nicht existiert, ist wahnhafen. Diese Tatsache ist für rationale Menschen offensichtlich. Mr google translate throws up some beauties !
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2017 17:13:35 GMT 10
Also Deiner Meinung nach ist Sophie Scholl mit dem wahnsinnigen Bayerischen König Ludwig zu vergleichen, weil ihr Widerspruch dem Nazismus auf christlichen Prinzipien beruht war. Das ist wirklich schade, daß Du solch ein zweifelhaftes Argument vorbringst. Das habe ich nicht gesagt. Man kann auf Gott glauben und ein guter Mensch sein. Es freut mich, daß Du das sagst. Auch Atheisten sind gute Menschen. Es wär aber sinnlos zu versuchen, ein Nicht-Gläubiger wie Du zu überzeugen, daß Gott existiert. Aus dem gleichen Grund wär es ebenso sinnlos zu versuchen, ein Gläubiger wie Occam zu überzeugen, daß es kein Gott gibt. Wozu also diese Zeitverschwendung?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2017 17:15:51 GMT 10
Das Gespräch mit etwas, das nicht existiert, ist wahnhafen. Diese Tatsache ist für rationale Menschen offensichtlich. Mr google translate throws up some beauties ! Amen to that! Beware of translation software. It's in its infancy. Finds nuance impossible to deal with. As for grammar, German imperfect subjunctives are enough to fry its circuits!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 5, 2017 18:30:18 GMT 10
Also Deiner Meinung nach ist Sophie Scholl mit dem wahnsinnigen Bayerischen König Ludwig zu vergleichen, weil ihr Widerspruch dem Nazismus auf christlichen Prinzipien beruht war. Das ist wirklich schade, daß Du solch ein zweifelhaftes Argument vorbringst. He aha te kawenga o tütae.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 5, 2017 18:59:22 GMT 10
Agreed. So let's all stop wasting each other's time and settle with theism being delusional and theists often being exponents of stupidism too. Absolutely agree, 100 percent multipled a hundredfold!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2017 21:03:32 GMT 10
So either join me in calling for the Religion Board to be shut down so that people will stop wasting time trolling, or fuck off and leave the Religion Board to those people who want to discuss religion.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 5, 2017 21:42:13 GMT 10
Why should we shut-down something which is a testament to the gullibility of theists?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2017 22:05:59 GMT 10
Spoken like the troll that you are. You really are the Donald Trump of the board.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2017 23:16:40 GMT 10
So according to you only militant paleo-atheist trolls are worthy of respect. Any other category is fair game for your trolling.
The hubris of it all.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 6, 2017 6:48:13 GMT 10
<sigh> And the vicious premeditated trolling of the Religion Board continues ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 6, 2017 9:01:24 GMT 10
<sigh> And the vicious premeditated trolling of the Religion Board continues ... If you don't like the board ... and you have called for it to be closed more than 3 times (before the cock crows) ... then don't look at it. Spoken (ok, typed!) with all the moral bankruptcy of the rapist who snarls at the witness who is attempting to intervene that "if you don't like what I'm doing, don't look at it!" Yeah, right! Really? Dountless you've got some little past nugget filed away in among the voluminous and detailed files you keep on everyone (it's true, gentle reader! This guy records and files every post ever posted by any member, whether past or present, and can produce them at will, complete with date posted plus link to thread - whether the thread/post was deleted or not. The spread sheet he would have constructed for this purpose would be unbelievable!) which you will produce with a flourish. Go ahead! Flourish away!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 6, 2017 9:15:45 GMT 10
<sigh> If KTJ is the Donald Trump of the board (and he is, gentle reader, he really is), then this yapping mincing little chihuahua has to be the Christopher Pyne of NTB There are times when you just have to walk away and deal with more mundane practical matters. This is one of those times ...
|
|