Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Since you don't like Dawkins
#26

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 07:43 PM)c172 Wrote: Any atheist YouTube channels you sub to? What's the feeling on Christina Rad (sp?).

I have been from time to time, viewing "Closer To Truth" series.  There is a lot there of interviews with theologians and atheists.  Comfortable bite sized.  One can then, if one finds an interesting person, or argument, one can look for follow up you tube video's.  Sometimes there are interviews, not directly about theism/atheism but science that has bearing on theological debates.  Cosmology and the inflationary Universe and Multiverse.  Interviews with leading experts such as Alan Guth or Andrei Linde.

Again, sometimes I find it educational to listen to the theologians..  It prevents me from battling strawmen.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#27

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 11:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-25-2019, 11:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(09-25-2019, 09:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: At the end of Candide, ... "We must cultivate our garden(s)"  : meaning "what is left, (practically) is, .. we must tend to our own affairs".

Taken from Epicurus.  His school was called "The Garden".

Internet Encyclopedia of Philsophy

A garden near the city of Athens, owned and used by the philosopher Epicurus and his followers. It became a symbol of Epicurean philosophy.

I think not. Candide is not about Epicurean philosophy. At all.

"After many horrific, over-the-top adventures traveling the world that Pangloss has taught him is "the best of all possible worlds," the naive Candide begins to gain wisdom and rethink his tutor's contention that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Having experienced a panorama of slavery, warfare, rape, dismemberment, execution, torture, disembowelment, and other such horrors, Candide, while staying in Turkey, happens to have dinner at the house of an Old Turk. Candide marvels at the plentitude of the dinner, with its several sherbets and other good food. He assumes the Turk must be very rich, but the Turk tells him he and his daughters live abundantly by cultivating only twenty acres. They keep themselves busy, are content with what they have, and lead a comfortable life.

Candide ponders this and decides that "cultivating one's garden" is a better option than trying to make one's fortune in the wider world. By "cultivating one's garden," Candide means more than just planting and tending to a literal garden of plants. His point is that one should surround oneself with family and close friends and then pursue one's talents. "Cultivating one's garden" is developing one's gifts. An individual should keep busy and do what they do best. The wider world can take care of itself. One does more for the world and stays safer, Candide implies, by concentrating on quietly developing one's own gifts, rather than trying to make an egoistic mark on the world." 




Candide is a  reductio ad absurdum of Liebnez's best possible world theology.  But the garden idea is what Epicurus did.  he surrounded himself with people interested in philosophy, even women and slaves.  His garden was a place he could be comfortable and avoid being at the whims of the world.

Candide pursues his fortune and realizes, that Pangloss is full of it and the wise old Turk and his daughters' gardens are a desirable idea.  In the end it is Epicurus's garden vs Leibnez's perfect world.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • DLJ
Reply
#28

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 11:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Candide pursues his fortune and realizes, that Pangloss is full of it and the wise old Turk and his daughters' gardens are a desirable idea.  In the end it is Epicurus's garden vs Leibnez's perfect world.

That is your interpretation, not clearly delineated by the text..

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
Reply
#29

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 11:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(09-25-2019, 11:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-25-2019, 11:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Taken from Epicurus.  His school was called "The Garden".

Internet Encyclopedia of Philsophy

A garden near the city of Athens, owned and used by the philosopher Epicurus and his followers. It became a symbol of Epicurean philosophy.

I think not. Candide is not about Epicurean philosophy. At all.

"After many horrific, over-the-top adventures traveling the world that Pangloss has taught him is "the best of all possible worlds," the naive Candide begins to gain wisdom and rethink his tutor's contention that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Having experienced a panorama of slavery, warfare, rape, dismemberment, execution, torture, disembowelment, and other such horrors, Candide, while staying in Turkey, happens to have dinner at the house of an Old Turk. Candide marvels at the plentitude of the dinner, with its several sherbets and other good food. He assumes the Turk must be very rich, but the Turk tells him he and his daughters live abundantly by cultivating only twenty acres. They keep themselves busy, are content with what they have, and lead a comfortable life.

Candide ponders this and decides that "cultivating one's garden" is a better option than trying to make one's fortune in the wider world. By "cultivating one's garden," Candide means more than just planting and tending to a literal garden of plants. His point is that one should surround oneself with family and close friends and then pursue one's talents. "Cultivating one's garden" is developing one's gifts. An individual should keep busy and do what they do best. The wider world can take care of itself. One does more for the world and stays safer, Candide implies, by concentrating on quietly developing one's own gifts, rather than trying to make an egoistic mark on the world." 




Candide is a  reductio ad absurdum of Liebnez's best possible world theology.  But the garden idea is what Epicurus did.  he surrounded himself with people interested in philosophy, even women and slaves.  His garden was a place he could be comfortable and avoid being at the whims of the world.

Candide pursues his fortune and realizes, that Pangloss is full of it and the wise old Turk and his daughters' gardens are a desirable idea.  In the end it is Epicurus's garden vs Leibnez's perfect world.

Just because they both have the word "garden" in them doesn't mean they are in any way similar. Epicurus' garden was a school. 
In Candide, it's where one quietly develops one's gifts ... oneself. It's not where one "goes to school" to learn from other people. In fact they're vastly different ideas.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#30

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 07:43 PM)c172 Wrote: Any atheist YouTube channels you sub to? What's the feeling on Christina Rad (sp?).

I really only use YouTube for video game walkthroughs when I get stuck.
Reply
#31

Since you don't like Dawkins
Who says I don't?

Dawkins', Smiths, Cambells, they all taste like Rabbit.
Reply
#32

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-25-2019, 11:18 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: The God of the OT is savage and brutal. 
Says the bad guys..
What about washington Grant LeMay or Truman.. Depending on which side of the battle your on these men where heros or supervillains.

Calling God evil is a self admission that you are on the wrong side of eternity. The term means nothing without context and any context in which you use to frame it again only points to your side of this 'war.' It does not vindicate you nor convict it just shows which side you are on.

I have no trouble what so ever in the Japanese view that Curtis LeMAY was a demon who incinerated millions of not regular army japanese people. even if you use the word civilian it does not change my view. As his actions were necessary to win the war in the pacific in the time frame which it was won.  
Quote:That God commands murders, massacres and genocides.
name a historically established authority who hasn't. You are doing little more than virtue signaling as every western country has committed genocide at one point or another. There are monsters who live among us and not all have the rights that men who can play by a set of rules and authority should have. Where do you live in what society are you apart that has never destroyed everyone around it to survive at one point? We are only here because of this ability to destroy the threat and take care of those who can work with us.
Quote:  As I have discussed here, we now know the OT is faux history, it never happened. 
Lol2 Rofl2 cause... you said so? Ever hear of a sweeping dismissal? It is to make a generalization without specific proof to try and invalidate a subject without addressing it.

so.. no. your going to have to put some effort into this if you want to throw away something like the OT. You can't say it does not eist because a few like minded people said you are right. So me something real.
read something cite something do anything beside naming it and claiming it!

Quote: The murders, massacres and genocides existed in the minds of the lying priest who made these tall tales up.
can't have it both ways you contradicting bag of vinegar and distilled water..
So either God is a monster who is unworthy of worship because he orders these massacres or they where made up.. Pick one. you sound like a tool when you try and adopt all reasons to hate God at once.

Quote: You have two choices, to accept the bible is not history and tells us nothing at all about God, or claim these tall tales are true and and try to spin them away, and for those of us who can read and reason, that won't fly.
why not? because your mind is already closed?

These stories do not take spin. they simply need to be read with an open mind.
Quote:Having read Dawkins, I do not always agree with him.  He doesn't go far enough.  Dawkins lets you Christians off far too easy.  For example he claims God cannot be disproven.  As a strong atheist i know that to be wrong.
OMG... then do it! Disprove God!
Reply
#33

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: These stories do not take spin. they simply need to be read with an open mind.

Why is your mind so closed to all other religions? You need an open mind.
The following 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#34

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: OMG... then do it! Disprove God!

Why?  You've yet to prove he, she or it—your god—exists.

How about you disprove the existence of unicorns?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#35

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: I have no trouble what so ever in the Japanese view that Curtis LeMAY was a demon who incinerated millions of not regular army japanese people. even if you use the word civilian it does not change my view. As his actions were necessary to win the war in the pacific in the time frame which it was won

On the other hand your God practically destroyed the entire planet, unnecessarily killing animals and plants along with those pesky humans he was so pissed off with.  What really sets him apart as the almighty barbarian is that the omnipotent one could have achieved his goal with a minimum of disruption to the rest of the planet.  Instead he chose a truly brutal and violent method which showed complete lack of empathy or even love.  Then again, he behaved just like the primitive warlord his creators imagined him to be.
No gods necessary
The following 2 users Like brunumb's post:
  • Szuchow, Chas
Reply
#36

Since you don't like Dawkins


ps.  The Turks' Garden represents the commune not the individual.  
The following 3 users Like DLJ's post:
  • Finite Monkeys, brunumb, Chas
Reply
#37

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 06:54 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: These stories do not take spin. they simply need to be read with an open mind.

Why is your mind so closed to all other religions? You need an open mind.
I have spent a long long time studying all religions of the world and even put in years 'testing' in their various prescribed ways how to reach out to God if at all possible.
Reply
#38

Since you don't like Dawkins
(10-01-2019, 05:25 PM)Drich Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:54 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: These stories do not take spin. they simply need to be read with an open mind.

Why is your mind so closed to all other religions? You need an open mind.
I have spent a long long time studying all religions of the world and even put in years 'testing' in their various prescribed ways how to reach out to God if at all possible.

Well that settles it then. Your own personal subjective experience certainly convinces me of the veracity of your current religion.
Reply
#39

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 10:04 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: OMG... then do it! Disprove God!

Why?  You've yet to prove he, she or it—your god—exists.

How about you disprove the existence of unicorns?

Who says the don't or never had existed?

That being said if you are talking about the common understanding of a unicorn: 
u·ni·corn
/ˈyo͞onəˌkôrn/
[/url]undefinedLearn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ACYBGNR2k1QlrE3mBBj3iWp5XK6m4i2qDQ:1569950792049&q=how+to+pronounce+unicorn&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GIvzctMzi_Ks2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQCB18nWWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji-5i6yvvkAhWJTN8KHTcTCDsQ3eEDMAB6BAgAEAg]

noun

  1. 1.
    a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

The evidence you need is found in the defination of the creature. A MYTHICAL ANIMAL...

Look no further for definitive proof than in the defination of the word.

Riddle me this, how much does it suck to be bested playing your own game?
Reply
#40

Since you don't like Dawkins
Disproving God.

If God creates all, and if God is omniscient, knowing the future in all details, which is standard theology's claims about God, then if God decides to create a world, God would have to choose an initial state of creation. From that chosen state, all will unfold in a strict deterministic manner and everything would follow from God's chosen starting state of creation.

Then we have no free will. All moral evil that happens, happens only because of God's choice of an initial state of creation. Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, all massacres and genocides.

But the claim of theology is that God is good. The Bible explicitly tells us God is fair, just, merciful, compassionate and God loves us. The God of Bible, Quran et al is problematic.

If God creates a world where John is a rapist, murderer and robber, and thus is damned to hell by God, this makes no sense as John had no choice, God predestined him to be evil.

1. Either God does not love us, does not care about us, is not as proclaimed by Bible, good, fair, just, merciful and compassionate.
2. Or God has not created anything at all, contra Bible et al.
3. Or is not able to forsee the future as theology claims.
4. Or does not exist.

If 3, we must ask why God no longer appears to mankind to give us guidance, tell us which religions are false, that jihadism is evil, that destroying our ecosystem is wrong, et al. God does not care or does not exist.

This will be number one in a series of disproofs of your God. Let the theological tap dancing begin.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, SYZ
Reply
#41

Since you don't like Dawkins
Disproof of God #2

Simplicity of God. The doctrine of the simplicity of God is one of the oldest Christian theological dogmas. God is simple, not made of parts, either physical parts of metaphysical parts. Derived from the Enneads of Plotinus and adapted by Augustus, and since a dogma of most Christian denominations.

God is simple, his substance and his essences and existence are all one and the same. Why make this argument? Because otherwise, we have to consider what metaphysical principles account for God's substance having the essences god has, which requires an outside metaphysical existing world beyond and preceding God. God then is not the creator of abstract objects (a philosophical term) such as logic or math.

In 1640, building on this concept Rene Descartes in a 1640 letter to Marin Mersennes explicitly laid this out. Taking this idea to it's logical conclusion, Descartes pointed out that God creates logic, math and morality, these things do not exist without God creating them.

And of course Descartes accepts RCC dogma that God os good, fair, just, merciful and compassionate.

Then why is there moral evil? A good God who hate moral evil would eliminate moral evil. That God would give man a god like free will such as God enjoys, and a good moral nature such as God enjoys. Such a man would never, of his own free will, commit moral evil.

Any theological claims God can not eliminate evil because of hidden reason, or limitations must be false. God creates the rules and could create a perfect world largely free of moral evil.

Obviously, this God, the standard theological simple God as proclaimed for many centuries, does not exist.

1. If logic, math, et al exist outside and beyond God, obviously God is not creator of all.
2. Where do these things, logic, math, morality and other abstract objects come from?
3. We have thus logically established that the Universe is basically rooted in naturalism, not supernaturalism.
4. Since naturalism can be the source of everything, God explains nothing, and need not exist.
5. Nature exists outside and beyond God, and leaves little room for God to exist.
6. The simple God of theology is impossible and does not obviously exist or we would live in a very different world.
7. Any possible God is subject to the laws of reality, the metaphysical abstract objects that create and define the world.

The God proposition does not work and is full of holes.

Naturalism is proven to be the basic arche of the Universe and God is as superfluous an idea as leprechauns and unicorns.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#42

Since you don't like Dawkins
(10-01-2019, 05:25 PM)Drich Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:54 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: These stories do not take spin. they simply need to be read with an open mind.

Why is your mind so closed to all other religions? You need an open mind.
I have spent a long long time studying all religions of the world and even put in years 'testing' in their various prescribed ways how to reach out to God if at all possible.

Provide us with a list of your objective criteria.
You "tested" God ?
Please provide us with a list of the religions you tested, so we'll know which ones we don't have to bother with.

Luke 4:12
"Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
Reply
#43

Since you don't like Dawkins
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote:
(09-25-2019, 11:18 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: The God of the OT is savage and brutal. 
Says the bad guys..
What about washington Grant LeMay or Truman.. Depending on which side of the battle your on these men where heros or supervillains.

Calling God evil is a self admission that you are on the wrong side of eternity. The term means nothing without context and any context in which you use to frame it again only points to your side of this 'war.' It does not vindicate you nor convict it just shows which side you are on.

I have no trouble what so ever in the Japanese view that Curtis LeMAY was a demon who incinerated millions of not regular army japanese people. even if you use the word civilian it does not change my view. As his actions were necessary to win the war in the pacific in the time frame which it was won.  
Quote:That God commands murders, massacres and genocides.
name a historically established authority who hasn't. You are doing little more than virtue signaling as every western country has committed genocide at one point or another. There are monsters who live among us and not all have the rights that men who can play by a set of rules and authority should have. Where do you live in what society are you apart that has never destroyed everyone around it to survive at one point? We are only here because of this ability to destroy the threat and take care of those who can work with us.
Quote: As I have discussed here, we now know the OT is faux history, it never happened. 
Lol2 Rofl2 cause... you said so? Ever hear of a sweeping dismissal? It is to make a generalization without specific proof to try and invalidate a subject without addressing it.

so.. no. your going to have to put some effort into this if you want to throw away something like the OT. You can't say it does not eist because a few like minded people said you are right. So me something real.
read something cite something do anything beside naming it and claiming it!

So, you simply sweep away the expertise of 50 years of the world's most immanent Near Eastern archaeologists?  What was it wrote about "sweeping dismissal"?

Sorry, but if you do that, you have lost the debate.  Facts are facts and the facts are, hard evidence demonstrates that the OT is fable.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

Reply
#44

Since you don't like Dawkins
The concept of Hell disproves "free will" anyway. If one's soul is held ransom, all moral decisions are going to revolve around Hell, if one believes in it.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#45

Since you don't like Dawkins
(10-01-2019, 05:25 PM)Drich Wrote: I have spent a long long time studying all religions of the world and even put in years 'testing' in their various prescribed ways how to reach out to God if at all possible.

Could you please pick one of them and enlighten us on the process you used and how you ultimately became convinced that this particular religion was false.
No gods necessary
Reply
#46

Since you don't like Dawkins
(10-01-2019, 05:42 PM)Drich Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 10:04 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-27-2019, 06:06 PM)Drich Wrote: OMG... then do it! Disprove God!

Why?  You've yet to prove he, she or it—your god—exists.

How about you disprove the existence of unicorns?
Who says the don't or never had existed?

Firstly, any good debater doesn't need to post a dictionary definition of any commonly-used word as
though it unequivocally supports their stance.  I think we all know what a fucking unicorn is, and I
was a little nonplussed that you needed to check with a dictionary yourself, apparently.

So... it seems you're not prepared and/or able to prove that unicorns do not and have never actually
existed in the real world?  You also agree (from your definition) that they're MYTHICAL beasts.
Part of the reason that they're so named is because there's not one iota of accredited evidence supporting
their existence anywhere in mankind's recorded history.

But at the same time, you're fully prepared to believe in the existence of another mythical entity which
has no evidence for its (or their) existence; namely God or gods.  Why do you make this distinction, and
what empirical evidence supports this distinction?

And I, for one, can unequivocally attest that unicorns do not exist, but I note that apparently you're not
so sure, with your implication that people who say this could be wrong.

BTW:  Repeated ad hominems won't win you any friends here—they only weaken your arguments
anyway as they show signs of desperation.  Feel free to attack my argument, but be heedful of attacking
me personally.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#47

Since you don't like Dawkins
(10-01-2019, 06:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-01-2019, 05:25 PM)Drich Wrote: I have spent a long long time studying all religions of the world and even put in years 'testing' in their various prescribed ways how to reach out to God if at all possible.

Provide us with a list of your objective criteria.
You "tested" God ?
Please provide us with a list of the religions you tested, so we'll know which ones we don't have to bother with...

I'm guessing that there's no way Drich could've "tested" all religions in the world.

UK Professor Michael Jordan authored a book entitled "Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World" which
offers concise information on more than 2,500 of these deities, from the most ancient gods of the polytheistic societies
—Hittite, Sumerian, Mesopotamian—to the most contemporary gods of the major monotheistic religions—Allah, God,
Yahweh. Among the cultures included are African peoples, Albanian, Pre-Islamic Arabian, Aztec, Babylonian, Buddhist,
Canaanite, Celtic, Egyptian, Native American, Etruscan, Germanic, Greek, Roman, Hindu, Persian, Polynesian, and Shinto.


"Oh, it's Tuesday, I'm gonna test Islam today.  I think
I might test Sikhism tomorrow, and maybe Zoroastrianism
on Thursday.  Sure got a lot to cover."  —Drich.                   Big Grin
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)