• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Faith and madness, am I too harsh?

gfm7175 said:
It seems as if your mind is already made up, and nothing will change that, so there's no reason for me to expand upon the arguments I listed; it would simply be wasted effort.
Click to expand...

If you thought they would stand up you would make them. that you evade shows that you know they will not last the minute.

My mind is open to persuaision. Your inability to persuade is noted.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You can list various arguments but not make them because you know full well that they will be torn appart very quickly.

Angel has no capacity to tell what evidence is strong and what is weak. This is according to Angel who will also not actually post any arguments.

You can see why i think you are all schitzo can't you?
Click to expand...
Talking drivel again, I see.

Namaste.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I have indeed been lied to by athiests. I have, however, found that the religious seem to lie as a natural flow to their thinking rather than as an act of choice.
Click to expand...
OK, so you can say bad things about certain people. We're talking here about critical thinking and how one can think critically about a question only after amassing all available evidence.
Critical thinking
philosophy.hku.hk/think
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.More at Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you thought they would stand up you would make them. that you evade shows that you know they will not last the minute.

My mind is open to persuaision. Your inability to persuade is noted.
Click to expand...
I think they do stand up. You can look into them for yourself if you wish. I simply see no reason to dive into each of them when you don't show a shred of openmindedness about any arguments from the opposing viewpoint.
 
gfm7175 said:
If I were to make a story "tell" better, sure, I might add embarrassing things about other people, but I would never do so about myself.


This would just be a refusal of known information. We have no reason to doubt who the specific writers of the gospels were.


That's fine. It's obvious that people can look at the same evidence and get a different perception from it, but for me, it led me to Jesus. And like I said, there are many things that I could get into. I could get into the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I could get into the Ontological Argument, I could get into the Moral Argument. I myself have made the argument that the mind and the brain are two separate things because they have three differing properties, and the three differing properties that the mind possesses do not have a physical nature, which leads me to believe that a spiritual realm actually co-exists with the physical realm. Even the existence of such things like "meaning" and "absolute truth" have led me to the Judeo Christian God. Angel can tell you all about the argument from "meaning".

Whether one agrees with me or not, I just don't think it's fair to say that theists are "all faith, no critical thinking". At least a few theists have critically thought out their position of faith, and through philosophy and science, have arrived to that conclusion.

One might say "One should only believe what can be scientifically proven!" However, is that statement provable scientifically?
Click to expand...

The Cosmological/Ontological/Teleological arguments are arguments dating from medieval times which have all been thoroughly debunked, at least in educated circles. Have been since the 18th century or so. Not even the most devout contemporary theologians and educated religious people use them in any serious way anymore, except when teaching things of historical interest to students. Those kinds of arguments these days are on a par with medieval ideas of alchemy or astrology.
 
gfm7175 said:
One might say "One should only believe what can be scientifically proven!" However, is that statement provable scientifically?
Click to expand...

Maybe not in a scientifically rigorous way. But from a pragmatic standpoint, traditional religious claims and teachings, such as the geocentric view of the universe, or the origin of life, any time they have been able to be subjected to empirical observation or verification, have proven to be wrong. Claims made by science, on the other hand, have been somewhat more fruitful.

So it's just a claim from pragmatism. If dancing and offering up sacrifices to the rain gods was a more fruitful way to ensure bountiful agricultural harvests every year than modern agricultural science and technology, guess what? I wouldn't need anyone to prove to me scientifically whether rain gods existed or not. I would be the first one dancing out there every year. But it hasn't, so here we are.
 
ataraxia said:
The Cosmological/Ontological/Teleological arguments are arguments dating from medieval times which have all been thoroughly debunked, at least in educated circles. Have been since the 18th century or so. Not even the most devout contemporary theologians and educated religious people use them in any serious way anymore, except when teaching things of historical interest to students. Those kinds of arguments these days are on a par with medieval ideas of alchemy or astrology.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely false. I see the best contemporary theologians use those arguments all the time.
 
ataraxia said:
The Cosmological/Ontological/Teleological arguments are arguments dating from medieval times which have all been thoroughly debunked, at least in educated circles. Have been since the 18th century or so. Not even the most devout contemporary theologians and educated religious people use them in any serious way anymore, except when teaching things of historical interest to students. Those kinds of arguments these days are on a par with medieval ideas of alchemy or astrology.
Click to expand...
By "thoroughly debunked" do you mean "vigorously disputed"? Alvin Plantinga, a renowned contemporary philosopher, has offered quite seriously a modal ontological argument, and William Lane Craig, a contemporary philosopher-theologian, a serious teleological argument. And who "thoroughly debunked" the cosmological argument; I'd like to read that one in particular. And Aquinas's teleological argument, when was that "thoroughly debunked" and by whom?

I ask these questions sincerely, not as challenges, but as requests for information I am unaware of.

Namaste.
 
Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
One might say "One should only believe what can be scientifically proven!" However, is that statement provable scientifically?

ataraxia said:
Maybe not in a scientifically rigorous way. But from a pragmatic standpoint, traditional religious claims and teachings, such as the geocentric view of the universe, or the origin of life, any time they have been able to be subjected to empirical observation or verification, have proven to be wrong. Claims made by science, on the other hand, have been somewhat more fruitful.

So it's just a claim from pragmatism. If dancing and offering up sacrifices to the rain gods was a more fruitful way to ensure bountiful agricultural harvests every year than modern agricultural science and technology, guess what? I wouldn't need anyone to prove to me scientifically whether rain gods existed or not. I would be the first one dancing out there every year. But it hasn't, so here we are.
Click to expand...
That's the answer right there. The rest is all either falsehoods or making excuses to get around the fact that the position itself is not scientifically provable.
 
For members unfamiliar with the arguments ataraxia and I are talking about.





 
Tim the plumber said:
In a another forum long long ago...

A poster who was very well educated and I respected a lot claimed that I did not know a fraction of the information in the universe using a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean he said something like "you don't know 1/<some number greater than the number of atoms in the universe>th of all there is to know"? I'm not sure I see what would be wrong with that kind of claim--at least I don't see any reason to rule out that it could be true.

Tim the plumber said:
using the idea that there could be an invisable, untouchable, person in the same room as me thus God is just plain drivel.
Click to expand...

What I've observed of these kinds of conversations is that interlocutors are sloppy with their own modal operators, and with their opponent's operators. That is, both parties tend to conflate and confuse reasons supporting a claim of possibility with those supporting a claim of actuality, and also tend to confuse those claims themselves. Both sides do it. It's very frustrating, but it's usually what leads to a breakdown in communication.

Tim the plumber said:
The religious on this forum are dominated by the clearly reality denial/delusional/exactly what I am talking about. I think the normal range of appologists for religion don't put in too many appearances due to the embarassment of being associated with them.
Click to expand...

That may be true.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I watched some of a program examining the inmates of a US mental instution last night.

They were predominately schizopathic. The characteristics of this generally include an obsession with religion.

I don't know the degree to which the religion is the cause of the effect or if they simply reinforce each other.

The point i am coming to in this thread is that the denial of reality/evaision/lying I find coming from the religious is not perhaps as concious or deliberate as I presume.

The mindset that has little skepticism in dealing with the god question has the same lack of barrier to any random thought coming into their head. The man who had been speeding due to the primemister of Israel telling him to do so in his mind via telepathy has little processing ability to stop any idea from gaining a sense of being real in his head.

Similarly the guy who had problems with voices and seeing things that were not there would be hard pressed to hold out against the bombardment of ideas that the modern world throws at us all.

Perhaps the best way to reduce madness is to teach good methodology of thinking and link that with simple demanding physical tasks. I reccomend dry stone walling as the most sanity building task there is but whatever works.

Is the lack of ability for atheists like myself to communicate with the religious here because we are not addressing the basic methods of thinking or that we are in fact doing this and the religious are so deeply, either naturally or by indoctrination, in a different mental structure?
Click to expand...

Insanity is a disease - malfunctioning of the brain. Teaching thinking skills will not reduce 'madness' but may ameliorate its symptoms , such as religious mania.
 
Angel said:
For members unfamiliar with the arguments ataraxia and I are talking about.

Click to expand...


I watched the first one, 9 minutes of my life gone.

It said the obvious. I now know what the ontological argument is;- drivel. I also know you have not watched it. It shows why that argument is 100% drivel.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean he said something like "you don't know 1/<some number greater than the number of atoms in the universe>th of all there is to know"? I'm not sure I see what would be wrong with that kind of claim--at least I don't see any reason to rule out that it could be true.
Click to expand...

Exacttly that. Obviously I do know more than that number. I know of more than 1/all of the atoms in the universe about the universe. I know of more of the atoms than 1/all of them. I know lots of other things as well.

But that whole argument is false because of course not knowing everything does not mean "thus God!!". I don't know is the start point of good thinking.


What I've observed of these kinds of conversations is that interlocutors are sloppy with their own modal operators, and with their opponent's operators. That is, both parties tend to conflate and confuse reasons supporting a claim of possibility with those supporting a claim of actuality, and also tend to confuse those claims themselves. Both sides do it. It's very frustrating, but it's usually what leads to a breakdown in communication.



That may be true.
Click to expand...

I believe us atheists try to keep it straight, I would appreciate anywhere I have not done so cited so i can inprove. The difficulty of chacing the religious areound their arguments is that you are often forced to used their language which, as you say shifts from moment to moment.
 
Sweden said:
Insanity is a disease - malfunctioning of the brain. Teaching thinking skills will not reduce 'madness' but may ameliorate its symptoms , such as religious mania.
Click to expand...

As I have already pointed out in this thread (you presumably responded to the OP, I am not having a go) the Branch Daidians who committed mass suicide did not all have malfunctioning brains. They had malfunctioning minds.

Brain ~ hardware

Mind ~software
 
Originally Posted by gfm7175
Well, for starters, I would never willingly share anything embarrassing about myself. I've read through the New Testament gospels numerous times, and I noticed that the writers were sharing embarrassing details about themselves. They very regularly made themselves look like dim-whitted, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away during the events leading up to the crucifixion. Meanwhile, the women were the brave ones who stuck around, remained faithful, and who went right to the burial site on Sunday morning while the men disciples were still in hiding. Would those disciples make up a story that painted themselves in such a bad light and these women in such a good light?
Click to expand...


Tim the plumber said:
They may well have done so to make the story tell better. They may well have done so because the people doing the telling of the story were not actully the deciples concearned. It may well all have been made up. Take your pick. Critical thinking not in evidence there.
Click to expand...

Critical thinking would supply some evidence to back up your latest, hair-brained theories.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I watched the first one, 9 minutes of my life gone.

It said the obvious. I now know what the ontological argument is;- drivel. I also know you have not watched it. It shows why that argument is 100% drivel.
Click to expand...
Much obliged for the early-morning giggle, Tim the plumber. Even my cats are tittering.
The millennial mire of social media and IT chat has hitherto spewed forth no more amusing specimen of dreary drivel-driven dross than that offered on a daily basis by that tragicomic cross between know-nothing and know-it-all at the fringe of western civilization, the partially-educated and semi-literate spawn of Dick Dawkins and a virtual bonobo, the New Atheist. And thank God for that! Yes?

Namaste.
 
Angel said:
Much obliged for the early-morning giggle, Tim the plumber. Even my cats are tittering.
The millennial mire of social media and IT chat has hitherto spewed forth no more amusing specimen of dreary drivel-driven dross than that offered on a daily basis by that tragicomic cross between know-nothing and know-it-all at the fringe of western civilization, the partially-educated and semi-literate spawn of Dick Dawkins and a virtual bonobo, the New Atheist. And thank God for that! Yes?

Namaste.
Click to expand...

That you put forward a video in support of your argument which, when watced, shows why your argument is drivel is regarded in normal debates as either lazy, incompetant or utterly dishonest. Generally all 3.

But my point in this thread is that you are not aware that you have done this. You will never watch the video because to do so would involve you allowing question and doubt into your thinking. So now, in your head you did not post the video. Sorted. But schitzophrenic.

Easy question;

Did you post the video?
 
Tim the plumber said:
That you put forward a video in support of your argument which, when watced, shows why your argument is drivel is regarded in normal debates as either lazy, incompetant or utterly dishonest. Generally all 3.

But my point in this thread is that you are not aware that you have done this. You will never watch the video because to do so would involve you allowing question and doubt into your thinking. So now, in your head you did not post the video. Sorted. But schitzophrenic.

Easy question;

Did you post the video?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed I posted the videos, and as I said when I posted the videos:
Angel said:
For members unfamiliar with the arguments ataraxia and I are talking about.
Click to expand...
You must walk before you can run, Tim the plumber. And you must read before you think critically. ;)

Namaste.
 
Angel said:
Yes, indeed I posted the videos, and as I said when I posted the videos:

You must walk before you can run, Tim the plumber. And you must read before you think critically. ;)

Namaste.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the video shows why the argument is drivel?
 
Angel said:
Much obliged for the early-morning giggle, Tim the plumber. Even my cats are tittering.
The millennial mire of social media and IT chat has hitherto spewed forth no more amusing specimen of dreary drivel-driven dross than that offered on a daily basis by that tragicomic cross between know-nothing and know-it-all at the fringe of western civilization, the partially-educated and semi-literate spawn of Dick Dawkins and a virtual bonobo, the New Atheist. And thank God for that! Yes?

Namaste.
Click to expand...

I thought the PBS videos were cute and well presented - probably exactly as they were intended. I thought both point and counterpoint were well represented.

My conclusions? The first is actually taken from the first video, though this may not be an exact quote: "Whether or not there’s a god seems to matter a lot to theists", and I would grant to some atheists as well.

This sums up my rejection of the arguments from both sides of this debate: Infinite Regress – the problem of origin. Stating that all things must have originated somewhere but that god is the originator which itself had no origin is self-defeating. Likewise, science has yet to present a theory that I've seen to explain root origin.

Someone made the watchmaker who made the watch. If you posit the watchmaker needed a creator and that creator is god (I realize I left some steps out there), how do you escape the need to present a creator of god? And then a creator of that creator, and so on?

Namaste. (Wife teaches yoga so I hear that a lot) :peace
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I thought the PBS videos were cute and well presented - probably exactly as they were intended. I thought both point and counterpoint were well represented.

My conclusions? The first is actually taken from the first video, though this may not be an exact quote: "Whether or not there’s a god seems to matter a lot to theists", and I would grant to some atheists as well.

This sums up my rejection of the arguments from both sides of this debate: Infinite Regress – the problem of origin. Stating that all things must have originated somewhere but that god is the originator which itself had no origin is self-defeating. Likewise, science has yet to present a theory that I've seen to explain root origin.

Someone made the watchmaker who made the watch. If you posit the watchmaker needed a creator and that creator is god (I realize I left some steps out there), how do you escape the need to present a creator of god? And then a creator of that creator, and so on?

Namaste. (Wife teaches yoga so I hear that a lot) :peace
Click to expand...

Science does not need to have an answer.

It is OK with I don't know.

Obviously that is a subject of enquiry.

And any system which involves reproduction/breeding will be subject to possible evolution and thus possible increases in complexity.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Do you understand that the video shows why the argument is drivel?
Click to expand...
I understand what you don't understand, that the short video presents only an introduction and includes one of the earliest attempts to refute the argument. What you also don't know is that the ontological argument has an ongoing career, most recently in the hands of contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

As usual the drivel is all from you.

Namaste.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Science does not need to have an answer.

It is OK with I don't know.
.
Click to expand...

I recognize that. I'm also okay with "I don't know" as an answer. That's the reason I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. A distillation of the the reason I don't buy theism I laid out in #96. When you start introducing the texts and dogmas of specific religions into the debate the idea of those god(s) seems to only get easier to dismiss.
 
Angel said:
I understand what you don't understand, that the short video presents only an introduction and includes one of the earliest attempts to refute the argument. What you also don't know is that the ontological argument has an ongoing career, most recently in the hands of contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

As usual the drivel is all from you.

Namaste.
Click to expand...

Then explain how it is not drivel.

I will not watch any other video, you will have to use your own words. You will have to demonstrate that you understand what you are talking about.

Or I will continue to consider you utterly unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom