|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are all Christians atheists? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I think you're saying that I have said that because people haven't proved belief in God is superstitious, then it isn't.
That would be argumentum ad ignorantium. Infact, I have reasoned that one can infer that it is not a superstition according to the common definition (evidence contrary to the positive claim). Your ad nauseum of the ad hominem is becoming a tad tiresome. At this stage I think it would be futile to continue with this debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
There is no "debate".
You ask for a definition to a word. Several people proved you with common definitions from many different well established sources. You claim that those definitions aren't good enough for you and that we've simply made up the words. That's not debate. That's just you with your fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you, nah nah nah nah."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
mtw writes: I have reasoned that one can infer that it is not a superstition according to the common definition (evidence contrary to the positive claim). No, you have conveniently decided to reject the common definition and create your own. Furthermore you failed to account for the fact that the existence of an given agent does not automatically indicate a given causal relationship. Did you read my responses in Msg 88? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
This is a superstitious belief that is common to many christians even if you reject it yourself. Are you denying this? I've no reason to reject that damnation is a superstitious belief. What does that have to do with belief in God, for the umpteenth time? What have Christians got to do with my counter argument?
This is an old canard. If there is no emprical evidence of God then one must logically proceed from that point. Not to do so is illogical and therefore superstitious. I wouldn't claim that an atheist is superstitious. THAT's the whole point - I used the logic presented to me. You guys should have bailed when Shraff was clever enough to mention a "subset". I settled for that pages ago. Now you're just trying to wind me up - and I'm a 2-stroke, so I thrive on revs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
You guys should have bailed when Shraff was clever enough to mention a "subset". I settled for that pages ago. Now you're just trying to wind me up - and I'm a 2-stroke, so I thrive on revs. You'll find that made a similar point when I stated that:-
RJB writes: superstition is a belief without empircal basis which gives rise to a false concept of causation. You conceded this point neither to Schraf or to myself at the time. Quite how I'm meant to guess your unposted thoughts is anyone's guess. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Superstition is a subset of belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I settle for subset because it describes how that belief in God is just a belief, but that the extra-beliefs that go with that, can be superstitious, such as those religious beliefs, like damnation. A set within a set. But yes, obviously belief in God is not a superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Is belief in the power of prayer a superstition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4060 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
What reason do you have to believe that people with as much, if not more, spiritual evidence in the existence of their Gods are some how wrong? In the context of your OP, this is one of the most answered questions in history. There are hundreds of pages of writings addressing the very gods you mention. Specifically Zeus/Jupiter and Apollo/Mars are thoroughly addressed in the writings of the early apologists. While modern skeptics won't agree with what the apologists say in defense of Christianity, the arguments against faith in Jupiter and the rest of the Roman gods are rather powerful. The most powerful one, in my opinion, is that the Greek and Roman gods behaved in ways that would get them prosecuted and punished by the Greek and Roman states. Jupiter, for example, ate his own children. Far from being gods, they are rather criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
right, or like the time Zeus sent down angels to rain brimstone over Sodom and Gamora
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: Is belief in the power of prayer a superstition? It depends who you ask. As I said before, a superstition is a thing that is held by another viewpoint as an empty ritual, or a belief without a causal agent. I could say prayer is a superstition, you could say any meditation that attempts to connect one to themselves or to nature or a 'state of being' is a superstition. What is true of both is that they sometimes work, and sometimes don't, and the 'result' is not something that can be guaranteed or repeated or predicted. They both make the doer feel good by engaging in them...so they are not completely without cause/effect. I would say that generally speaking a ritual must be 'proven' as ineffective. I also suppose that some rituals over time and evolution of beliefs, have become diconnected from some causal agent that they were attached to in the past. One custom stays after paganism and is picked up by Christianty in such a way that it gets displaced or does not follow the mode of that religion. If you look at Polish culture for one, the Easter customs involve many things which are picked up from prior religions. On Easter Monday there is a traditional dousing of young ladies by male suitors. It is without meaning or efficacy in Christianity, but there is a probability that at one time this act had a causal agent. In other words, the water may have symbolized something from an entirely different god/s that DID have powerful connotations. The idea is that superstition is like heresy. It can only be 'called out' by someone who doesn't believe it. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
mtw writes: But yes, obviously belief in God is not a superstition. Mmmm. So let's leave the issue of causality aside for a moment and focus on a simple belief of existence. Is a belief in fairies a superstition? If so, then how is a belief in God different? Now let's bring causality back into the mix and consider why you choose to believe in God at all. As Schraf has already pointed out, surely you seek some form of consequence to arise from your beliefs? Alternatively, do you believe for absolutely no reason at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Where is the requirement that gods be benevolent? Saturn (not Jupiter) ate his own children, yes, but Yaweh drowned nearly all life on earth. I really don't see the difference. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I've never bought the argument that Christians (and people of other religions) are atheist to all gods but their own, whereas the atheist just "goes one further" as Dawkins says. Believing in God (any god) is fundamentally different than atheism. The theist, no matter what religion, accepts the supernatural on some level, where the atheist does not. I have to agree with your rationale here. I have only made a cursory glance at only a few posts thus far, but here seems to be a fundamental misappropriation of the word "atheist" when used in context to Christians. The defining principles of Christianity categorically state a monotheistic belief. Its nonsensical to say that one can be an atheist in most instances when by definition one must always be an atheist. Believing in even one God would completely nullify the usage of the very word. Its almost like Dawkins and the OP cannot accept theism unless in context to polytheism, rather than monotheism. BTW, good to see you all again Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos "Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, welcome back, Juggs!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024