• 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!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

soylentgreen said:
Where as here is a link to what actually occurs in those orphanages
Nuns in Ireland buried babies and children in mass grave | The National
Click to expand...

Sure. Let people decide whether they will go with your personal worldview based on the evidence of one article of an incident that may or may not have occurred in one place at one moment in time. Or whether they will go with the view of actual historians as expounded upon by an extensive, professionally researched and edited article in Encyclopedia Britannica with citations to plenty of primary and secondary sources.

Again, here it is for those who are interested:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Christian-community-and-the-world#ref301774


In fact, maybe some of them will actually read past the headline you provided and realize that the article you posted does not support your claim since it clearly states:
The nuns would help deliver the babies, who would then be brought up elsewhere until they could be adopted.
But the babies and children who died at the home were buried in these crypt-like chambers.
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
Sure. Let people decide whether they will go with your personal worldview based on the evidence of one article of an incident that may or may not have occurred in one place at one moment in time. Or whether they will go with the view of actual historians as expounded upon by an extensive, professionally researched and edited article in Encyclopedia Britannica with citations to plenty of primary and secondary sources.

Again, here it is for those who are interested:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Christian-community-and-the-world#ref301774


In fact, maybe some of them will actually read past the headline you provided and realize that the article you posted does not support your claim since it clearly states:
The nuns would help deliver the babies, who would then be brought up elsewhere until they could be adopted.
But the babies and children who died at the home were buried in these crypt-like chambers.
Click to expand...
Typical approach of a christian to cherry pick.
Roman Catholic religious orders ran homes for unmarried pregnant girls until well into the 1990s all over Ireland. The young women sent to them often suffered harsh treatment at the hands of the nuns who believed sex outside marriage was a mortal sin.....But the babies and children who died at the home were buried in these crypt-like chambers. Investigators said that DNA analysis confirmed that the discovered remains were of children between the ages of 35 weeks and three years.
"It’s horrific what they did," Ms Corless said.
Click to expand...


One link, not hard to find more that support it.
Christian Abuse of Children - Bad News About Christianity
Bastardy, or illegitimacy, was a condition imposed upon a child by the canon law as a punishment for the sin of the parents who conceived it by illicit connection. By a legal fiction, a child born out of wedlock was no one's child, filius nullius1.....In the past the Christian Church condoned all manner of evil done to children. It tried and executed them for witchcraft and for other offences. It saw nothing wrong in beating them frequently and severely for minor wrongdoing — even for other people's wrongdoing. It terrified them with stories of Hell. It allowed them to contract arranged marriages. It failed to speak out against child labour because it saw nothing at all wrong in the practice. For many centuries the Church opposed the education of poor children, except in the few cases where boys could be drawn into its own service. Girls were denied education altogether. In punishing children for sins they had not committed, there seems to have been almost no concept of fairness or rights. Thus, the Church made much of the concept of bastardy:
Click to expand...
This particular phrase backs what i have said. It takes a belief in a god to behave in horrible manner in the name of a god.
Also, as theological authorities pointed out, God had punished the children of Sodom by death, for the sins of their fathers2, so the punishment of innocent children was easily justified3. Good Christians were, as they pointed out, only following God's own precedent.
Click to expand...

The orphanages you are so proud of were nothing more than a place where a bunch of christians could behave like sadists and justify their cruelty in the name of a god.
 
soylentgreen said:
You really should not discriminate. By doing so you pander to the theists who try to argue that their faith has good reasoning behind it. It makes it harder to point out it is a futile bit of reasoning when they can point to others who falsely make the argument for them. As well it is in fact an oxymoron which makes the user of the words reasoned faith look silly just on a case of grammar. You should in fact distinguish between the two.

When I can not be positive of an outcome but can reason that the odds are strongly on my side I can hold to a reason for success.

If I have no idea but do it anyway I am functioning solely on faith.

The latter is a fools game. In that case we should have a game of poker sometime.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right about that but my issue with just saying I have a reason to expect success is that I don't expect success. It's not guaranteed. You and I are taking risks. There is always a measure of uncertainty to everything we do. That uncertainty can be vanishingly small or it can be very large. We live in a world described by probabilities.

It's not my problem that many people do not understand that fact of reality. They seek a sense of surety in their religious beliefs. They seek a solid underpinning for things like ethics and morals. I know the theists have reasoning behind their beliefs but the problem is that their reasoning is irrational. They start with an emotional need and fill it with the irrationality of a deity driven religion.

Scientific investigation works with evidence. That evidence reduces the uncertainty. The evidence gives reason to establish probabilities. Physicists claim to have discovered the Higgs Boson for an example....Did they? Well yes with a certainty to better than 349,999,999/1 that they did. That's a 5 sigma level event. Do I have faith that they really did find evidence for the Higgs Boson? Yes I do. Am I certain? NO.
 
Russell797 said:
Maybe you are right about that but my issue with just saying I have a reason to expect success is that I don't expect success. It's not guaranteed. You and I are taking risks. There is always a measure of uncertainty to everything we do. That uncertainty can be vanishingly small or it can be very large. We live in a world described by probabilities.

It's not my problem that many people do not understand that fact of reality. They seek a sense of surety in their religious beliefs. They seek a solid underpinning for things like ethics and morals. I know the theists have reasoning behind their beliefs but the problem is that their reasoning is irrational. They start with an emotional need and fill it with the irrationality of a deity driven religion.

Scientific investigation works with evidence. That evidence reduces the uncertainty. The evidence gives reason to establish probabilities. Physicists claim to have discovered the Higgs Boson for an example....Did they? Well yes with a certainty to better than 349,999,999/1 that they did. That's a 5 sigma level event. Do I have faith that they really did find evidence for the Higgs Boson? Yes I do. Am I certain? NO.
Click to expand...

This is why we have to be careful with a word like faith. Christians take this uncertainty and falsely claim we live by faith, so therefor their faith in a god is justified. I have said once before that arguments with christians about a god are not about facts or even faith. They are an examination on which particular fallacious argument they are trying out.
 
soylentgreen said:
This is why we have to be careful with a word like faith. Christians take this uncertainty and falsely claim we live by faith, so therefor their faith in a god is justified. I have said once before that arguments with christians about a god are not about facts or even faith. They are an examination on which particular fallacious argument they are trying out.
Click to expand...

Understood. It's a shame though that a perfectly good and nuanced meaning for a word shouldn't be used around certain crowds. I feel the same way about using the word theory. They co-opt the meaning of that scientific word also.
 
Russell797 said:
Understood. It's a shame though that a perfectly good and nuanced meaning for a word shouldn't be used around certain crowds. I feel the same way about using the word theory. They co-opt the meaning of that scientific word also.
Click to expand...

They do it all the time. I find it pitiful when they say atheism is a faith. Faith is about the only thing they have which is not ridiculous, wrong, but not ridiculous. And then they degrade it by using it so badly.
 
soylentgreen said:
Typical approach of a christian to cherry pick.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Sorry, but I'm the guy encouraging people to listen to actual historians who have combed through all available evidence and actually dedicated their lives to the study of history. You're the one recommending people ignore the conclusions of the experts and go with yours, which have been cobbled together from cherry-picked internet articles.

Again, here are the conclusion that actual experts who have studied all the evidence and aren't just cherry-picking have come to, as described in one of the most respected professionally edited encyclopedias:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Christian-community-and-the-world#ref301774
 
CrabCake said:
:lamo

Sorry, but I'm the guy encouraging people to listen to actual historians who have combed through all available evidence and actually dedicated their lives to the study of history. You're the one recommending people ignore the conclusions of the experts and go with yours, which have been cobbled together from cherry-picked internet articles.

Again, here are the conclusion that actual experts who have studied all the evidence and aren't just cherry-picking have come to, as described in one of the most respected professionally edited encyclopedias:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Christian-community-and-the-world#ref301774
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you your brittanica does not leave out the bad things also done by christians
European settlers, who expected to instruct the indigenous population in the faith and protect them, instead enslaved or cruelly exploited them. Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474–1566) championed their cause but, ironically, favoured increasing the already growing number of African slaves.
Click to expand...

If you had any real interest in listening to historians then you would not seek just one source that talks only favorably about christianity while passing over its many faults.

The question should be, can you refute the other sources. Not can you do nothing more than just repeat the same thing.

A third source i can give that tells us your one and only source has left many facts unstated.
The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa
The nun adored by the Vatican ran a network of care homes where cruelty and neglect are routine. Donal MacIntyr gained secret access and witnessed at first hand the suffering of "rescued" orphans.
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
Unfortunately for you your brittanica does not leave out the bad things also done by Christians
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with this discussion?

The fact remains that Christians did invent orphanages and they were not the exploitative hell holes you portrayed.


soylentgreen said:
If you had any real interest in listening to historians then you would not seek just one source that talks only favorably about christianity while passing over its many faults.
Click to expand...

I listed it for your benefit, not mine. Like I told the other guy, my knowledge of the topic doesn't come from the internet. The fact remains that it is not one source, it is an authoritative Encyclopedia article that summarizes the facts we know from history and lists all of its sources; it's a summary of all we know based on everything that has been written and studied through the ages.

Your story, on the other hand, appears to be backed by absolutely no one and comes from cobbled together internet articles.
 
CrabCake said:
What does that have to do with this discussion?

The fact remains that Christians did invent orphanages and they were not the exploitative hell holes you portrayed.




I listed it for your benefit, not mine. Like I told the other guy, my knowledge of the topic doesn't come from the internet. The fact remains that it is not one source, it is an authoritative Encyclopedia article that summarizes the facts we know from history and lists all of its sources; it's a summary of all we know based on everything that has been written and studied through the ages.

Your story, on the other hand, appears to be backed by absolutely no one and comes from cobbled together internet articles.
Click to expand...

Yes they invented them ansd then used them to torture, exploit and murder women and children. be proud of that.

And as i said it is only one source. Any one with any real interest or understanding of history would look at more than one. Those like you who are only interested in a biased position that supports only your view will use only one source.

My information can be backed by various sources. Your relies upon one source only.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, i had already stated that the fsm is nothing more than a concept. It does not exist. I was pointing out that there is no difference in the idea of a prime mover and the fsm. Both are discussed as entities.
Click to expand...

This is false. An entity is a particular being, or this is the usual use in these contexts. The God of classical theism is held not to be a particular being alongside all other beings, but being itself (or perhaps, in some schools, beyond being, but we need not worry about that). The FSM, indeed, is not just a particular being but one that exists in time and space - in the universe. Therefore, the FSM is doubly distant from the God of classical theism.


I had a feeling that you might say that. We are back to your not understanding the language you use.

Note the two words in bold. "Therefor" signals the conclusion. But the use of the word "and" brings on an additional bit of information, or otherwise called a premise.
Click to expand...

You are being imprecise. The Five Ways are arguments (or rather summaries of arguments) for the existence of a transcendent cause. They do not assume that cause. Aquinas argues elsewhere why this cause must have the attributes ascribed to the God of classical theism. It was certainly not apparent from your previous comments this is what you meant - Aquinas does not assume God exists to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause.
 
Russell797 said:
What knowledge? First you say there is knowledge, then you say it is allegedly discoverable by proofs....which is it? Then I must "prove" something based on the allegations and alleged proofs?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm simply conceptually differentiating the kind of entities and knowledge involved. I'm not saying the proofs are correct. What I'm saying is that until they are shown to fail, Russell's teapot/FSM misses the point.

"there is change" is the consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Not a proof of god at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it is a consequence per se, but, anyway, one version of the cosmological argument (such as in Aquinas' First Way) does use change to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause. SoylentGreen actually quoted a portion of that argument.


Also if god does not exist in time and space then how can it interact with time and space and anything contained within?....that makes no sense.

You are speaking of scientifically derived knowledge when you discuss the laws of nature. Scientific investigation has not overturned the laws which make up the standard model of physics. Science is not philosophy. At one time there was no difference. Science and philosophy were one and the same. That was many centuries ago.

Science works with empirical evidence. If said god in some way objectively exists we can not know it by assessing objective reality. Deep intellectualism which you offer does nothing to alter the reality that we can not detect anything which may exist "outside" our spacetime. All you have is speculation and irrational arguments. You must have a blind faith that god exists because there is no path to knowledge.
Click to expand...

This is just rather poorly strung together assertions, which is somewhat ironic given they include attacks on theists for blind faith.
 
devildavid said:
I'm aware that some have tried to prove god through words. I don't call those proofs at all. If evidence of god can't be observed directly there is a good reason for that. The simplest explanation is that god is an idea created by man and only exists as an idea. Taking the idea of god literally is a mistake, no matter who has tried to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is just unsupported assertions, which is somewhat ironic given your position. You show no more than the most general awareness of these proofs, so I'm not sure why there should be any stock put in your dismissals of them. The rest of your claims is simply a very simplistic and amateurish attempt at sociology of religious belief based upon these dismissals.
 
Wessexman said:
This is false. An entity is a particular being, or this is the usual use in these contexts. The God of classical theism is held not to be a particular being alongside all other beings, but being itself (or perhaps, in some schools, beyond being, but we need not worry about that). The FSM, indeed, is not just a particular being but one that exists in time and space - in the universe. Therefore, the FSM is doubly distant from the God of classical theism.
Click to expand...
If you are under the impression that you have the right to determine what i claim the fsm to be then surely you must agree that i must also have the right to determine what your god should be.

You are being imprecise. The Five Ways are arguments (or rather summaries of arguments) for the existence of a transcendent cause. They do not assume that cause. Aquinas argues elsewhere why this cause must have the attributes ascribed to the God of classical theism. It was certainly not apparent from your previous comments this is what you meant - Aquinas does not assume God exists to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause
Click to expand...
While you are moving the goal post. My statement only concerned the first way which is what you were talking about. From your post #2432,
That is not remotely what Aquinas' first way looks like. It doesn't have God's existence as a premise.
Click to expand...
Aquinus named the transcedent cause as god.
 
soylentgreen said:
If you are under the impression that you have the right to determine what i claim the fsm to be then surely you must agree that i must also have the right to determine what your god should be.
Click to expand...

I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.

While you are moving the goal post. My statement only concerned the first way which is what you were talking about.
Click to expand...

And your statement was confused. You said he simply assumed God exists as the premise for the entire argument. He doesn't do that, clearly. What you seem to object to now is that after his main conclusion he mentions that the transcendent cause is generally called God and doesn't immediately prove this there. That is a pretty facile objection, seeing as he does that elsewhere.

Aquinus named the transcedent cause as god.
Click to expand...

So what? The point of the First Way is to show a transcendent cause. This is the conclusion of the argument. As you said, the bit that comes after the therefore. The final clause is not strictly speaking a part of the argument for that cause, or, in fact, the First Way. He argues for that clause elsewhere.
 
Wessexman said:
This is just unsupported assertions, which is somewhat ironic given your position. You show no more than the most general awareness of these proofs, so I'm not sure why there should be any stock put in your dismissals of them. The rest of your claims is simply a very simplistic and amateurish attempt at sociology of religious belief based upon these dismissals.
Click to expand...

I can dismiss anything that has to do with the so-called proofs of the existence of god because there is no physical evidence of god. I don't need to read every attempt to prove god because such proofs are meaningless. Even science does not prove things but presents fact and evidence. Since there are no facts and no evidence to present about the existence of god there is no reason to delve into the question. Religious belief is just that, a belief without evidence. No different than any other type of belief or superstition.
 
Wessexman said:
I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.
Click to expand...
You have to agree that people tend to define god in a similar manner. Yet some like yourself want to differ and present another aspect of god. It is your right to do so. your belief your problem. Yet here you are trying to deny that right to others. It matters not how others choose to believe in the fsm. Just as it matters not how others believe in god. Right now i must give you respect by accepting your version of god and not try and force you into believing another version. Of course i could change my mind and attitude if you feel you have the right to insist on telling me what my belief is.

And your statement was confused. You said he simply assumed God exists as the premise for the entire argument. He doesn't do that, clearly. What you seem to object to now is that after his main conclusion he mentions that the transcendent cause is generally called God and doesn't immediately prove this there. That is a pretty facile objection, seeing as he does that elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I thought it quite clear that he wishes the thing he calls a prime mover to be called a god. When he states "and this everyone understands to be God.”" Should i not assume that he includes himself in that everyone.


So what? The point of the First Way is to show a transcendent cause. This is the conclusion of the argument. As you said, the bit that comes after the therefore. The final clause is not strictly speaking a part of the argument for that cause, or, in fact, the First Way. He argues for that clause elsewhere.
Click to expand...
True, all the ways are connected to finally prove that there is a god. In fact that is the whole purpose of his argument to uphold the idea that a god exists. It is not proof of a gods existence because it starts from the very beginning with the assumption that a god exists.
 
Wessexman said:
I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm simply conceptually differentiating the kind of entities and knowledge involved. I'm not saying the proofs are correct. What I'm saying is that until they are shown to fail, Russell's teapot/FSM misses the point.



Actually, I don't think it is a consequence per se, but, anyway, one version of the cosmological argument (such as in Aquinas' First Way) does use change to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause. SoylentGreen actually quoted a portion of that argument.




This is just rather poorly strung together assertions, which is somewhat ironic given they include attacks on theists for blind faith.
Click to expand...

Let's cut through the mumbo jumbo and speak clearly. Are you claiming that a supposed god is potentially discoverable by the human mind? If the answer is yes then I must demand an explanation which describes the interaction. Otherwise the claim falls short of convincing because we will not know whether the communication is real as described, or some other unexplained process or phenomenon or even just confirmation bias.

You keep saying that there are philosophical proofs or something. That sounds like an oxymoron.

You say you are not sure that entropy explains change in our universe. You would rather attribute change to divine intervention? Thermodynamics is a foundational aspect of physics. You are not so subtly denying science if you claim entropy does not explain motion and change in our universe of matter and energy.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.
Click to expand...

The FSM is a god..It can appear to us however it wants to. Who are you to say what god can or can not be? It's omnipotent and omnipresent. Probably omnivorous too!
 
mbig said:
My favorite post on this ever .. by a poster no longer around
C Gerstle:

"To call atheism a religion is to call bald a hair color.

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​

IOW, what 'Religion' is Apisa if he is a non-alchemist, or non-astrologist? Also NONE.
Because non-belief is NOT a religion.
Click to expand...

This argument is just lazy. Its easy to say "prove it", just like its easy for me to say "Prove otherwise". Anyone who asserts they are right, and someone else is wrong, has the burden of proof if they expect others to believe them. The lack of belief in God is still a belief, even if that belief is a non belief. If it comes down to proof, religion wins every time. There are thousands of religious texts, all pointing to the existence of a supreme being. Other than a refusal to believe those texts, what proof do you have that there is no God?
 
Dpetty said:
This argument is just lazy. Its easy to say "prove it", just like its easy for me to say "Prove otherwise". Anyone who asserts they are right, and someone else is wrong, has the burden of proof if they expect others to believe them. The lack of belief in God is still a belief, even if that belief is a non belief. If it comes down to proof, religion wins every time. There are thousands of religious texts, all pointing to the existence of a supreme being. Other than a refusal to believe those texts, what proof do you have that there is no God?
Click to expand...

Religious texts are fictions written by men. They only point toward man's need to create a god concept as a means of attempting to explain why we are here and what our purpose is. Atheism is not a religion. It really is that simple.
 
devildavid said:
Religious texts are fictions written by men. They only point toward man's need to create a god concept as a means of attempting to explain why we are here and what our purpose is. Atheism is not a religion. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

If you read my previous comment, i said you needed something OTHER than refusal to believe the proof that has been provided. The age of the texts referring to the existence of God cant be refuted, they are some of the oldest texts known to man. So how can you prove they are lies? Do you have similarly aged texts stating a contradictory belief? I can refuse to accept any proof provided for any topic, that doesnt in and of itself mean im right, it only means im willingly ignorant. Atheists may not refer to themselves as a religion, but there are organized groups of people who get together to share their beliefs in the non existence of a God. I'd say that qualifies as a religion to me.
 
Dpetty said:
Do you have similarly aged texts stating a contradictory belief?
Click to expand...

They all contradict each other, except for the ones from later cultures that borrowed the traditions from the earlier culture.

How can the universe have been willed into existence by Yaweh and also brought forth from the cosmic waters by Vishnu as a boar?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
They all contradict each other, except for the ones from later cultures that borrowed the traditions from the earlier culture.

How can the universe have been willed into existence by Yaweh and also brought forth from the cosmic waters by Vishnu as a boar?
Click to expand...

Now your talking about individual beliefs/religions (Human attempts to understand God), which has nothing to do with the actual existence, or non existence of a God/Supreme being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom