Quantcast
Channel: Cognate Socialist Dystopia
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 585
↧

222222 sheridan

October 28, 2017, 11:01 pm
$
0
0
vsc




Edward W
Great article.  I like the "Evolutionary theory and science offer marvellous explanations of how, they offer no explanations of why."  Might I insert "who" before "why", both are valid points.

Avatar for Catherine

Catherine
Interesting that atheists also must endlessly reaffirm their beliefs...

Avatar for Tony in BS Central

Tony in BS Central
@Catherine What an interesting point!  How would an atheist go about reaffirming a belief which is actually a disbelief or a non-belief.  How does one re-affirm a negative?  Sorry Catherine, but as Pauline would say, please explain!
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Catherine In big print this time Catherine in the vain hope it might get through. ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN THEISM. IT IS NOT A BELIEF IN ITSELF, although it may include supporting reasons that do in fact include respect for the rules of argument, reason and the nature of evidence. It therefore does not need ‘reaffirmation’ as a 'belief'.
Avatar for Catherine

Catherine
@Tony@Richard@Robert@Rob
Atheists merely claim to have “belief” to the same (inverse) extent that Christians do.
Agnosticism is quite distinct, in that it maintains that there are not sufficient grounds to support either belief system.
Avatar for Tony in BS Central

Tony in BS Central
@Big John @Catherine If this is the definition of religion:

  1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Then atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism does not involve belief or faith.  It is the intellectual rejection of man made propositions that lack evidence or rationality. 
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Catherine Not the case Catherine. FYI, there atheists 500 years before Christianity. Lack of belief in something is not the inverse of a postive belief in something.
Admittedly [although it really depends on how terms are defined] agnostics are a bit of a wimpy cop-out and like to have a bob or two each way without actually laying a bet. That involves some mental gymwere nastics I can do without.
Avatar for Graeme

Graeme
@Catherine Agnostics say "I don't know and reserve my judgement."
Atheists say "I do not accept your statement for the existence of that god." In fact Agnostics are atheists who leave a gate open for you.
Atheists like me say "I don't accept that argument because of reasons 1., 2., 3. You're done here. NEXT!"
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Catherine Once more Catherine, a lack of belief is not a positive belief. I do not believe in Spaghetti Monsters. That does not make me a positive believer in the religious practice of non-belief in Spaghetti Monsters.
The joke was funny though.
Avatar for Catherine

Catherine
@Graeme@Richard- I only make the observation that saying “I don’t know” is different to saying “I know- KNOW- beyond any and all doubt”.
“Leaving the gate open” is the difference between doubt and faith. Faith-or belief- is manifest at opposite of the spectrum of religiosity and anti-theism.
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Catherine Atheism leaves the gate open to evidence. Inference to the best explanation is always inference it is not deduction; it is not the deceptive attraction of deductive certainty and it is not a priori religious faith that already has all possible answers and by definition nothing rational will shake.
A-theism is just not anti-theism, You simply don't understand the various concepts Catherine,
Avatar for Catherine

Catherine
@Richard- really? Hitchens asserted that he was an anti-theist (... encompassing atheism).
As you note, inference is not the same as evidence. If absolute evidence is required to prove the existence of God, it is also required to disprove the existence of God. I’m waiting for atheists to prove the basis of their beliefs. That is all.
Avatar for Richard IV

Richard IV
@Catherine. You appear to have respect for the "agnostic" position. I would like it explained to me, but from the tenor of you previous posts you don' t seem capable of putting forward any reasoned statement.
You seem to imply though, that an Agnostic admits they do not know. Well that is precicely what an atheist says.
I put it to the forum that any difference between the two words is purely semantic and even then so fine a distiction as to be effectively meaningless. Both words start with 'a' implying "not" as in "asexual" or "apolitical" . The suffixes are "theist" meening believing in god in the same was as say "communist" to mean believing in communism ; and "gnostic" meaning "religeous" in the same way as Toxic means "poisonous" (no connection implied of course!)
So one word means "not believing in god" and the other means "not religeous". I cant sopt much diffence but can anonyone enlighten me?
Avatar for Graeme

Graeme
@Catherine Not true. That which is asserted without evidence - such as the proposition that there is a god - can be dismissed without evidence.
Come up with any evidence for the existence of any god and we can talk. Until then it's just so much hot air and platitudes.
Avatar for Graeme

Graeme
@Richard IV Agnostics are essentially a sub-set of Atheists. They are atheists who say they don't accept the proposition that there is a god AND that they don't know, one way or another, whether there is a god.
In fact "gnosis" means "to know". The Gnostics were people who made claims to special secret "knowledge" about the nature of the world and god.
So Agnostics - those who claim no special knowledge - are in fact also Atheist; rejecting the position that there is a specific god.
Avatar for Donald

Donald
Sorry Greg.  Your rather convoluted attempts to establish the existence of a god by using pseudo logical argument falls well short of the mark.  On the contrary it is far more logical, common sense and scientific to believe in evolution rather than creation.  To suggest that the default position of the brain is blind, unchallenged believe rather than to use our brains to figure out the truth is total nonsense. In fact that is what all religions and all of their respective gods rely on, dumb belief in a particular religion and god usually resulting from indoctrination (radicalisation) from an early age.  You describe atheism as a faith.  This is a misnomer.  Call it a lack of faith if you like but it is merely the result of the thought process arriving at a conclusion. 

Avatar for Robert

Robert
@Donald Yes, Donald, Greg's delusional description of atheism as a faith, though not unusual from believers, says much about their own insecurity and need to attack and insult the objectivity of atheists.

- Rob on Park  :-)
Avatar for Andrew

Andrew
@Rolfe @Donald Do people publish books on why not collecting stamps is more rational than stamp collecting? Do you have non-stamp collectors arguing that stamp collectors are too irrational to be permitted to enter university? Seems like Atheism requires a high degree of evangelism rather than a nil degree of faith.
Avatar for Big John

Big John
@Donald what is the point of the universe if there is no one to enjoy and explore it ?

Does this mean everything is pointless and just a random bit of luck?
That is what Evolution is based on ?
Avatar for Helio

Helio
@Donald Really, Donald? You mentioned "is far more logical, common sense and scientific to believe in evolution rather than creation". If that is the case, show me example of transitional fossils of the evolutionary chain? Which are the fossils which are half monkey and half human? What about those which are half reptile and half bird? 
So out of nothing, came everything without intelligent and powerful intervention? You've got to be kidding me!
Look into it and you will find out that evolution is a theory desperately lacking of scientific validation.
Avatar for Nico

Nico
There is no religion as sophisticated as Christianity. All comments to the the contrary are made by semi literate PC types.
Christianity is the whole expression of the West and created the fundamental preconditions for modern science to flourish.

Avatar for Tony in BS Central

Tony in BS Central
@Nico Again respectfully, Crap.
Take just one example:  
Back around 100-200 years BCE, the orbits of the earth, moon and known planets were known with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, even to the period of the earth being 365 1/4 days, AND that knowledge had been translated into a machine that could predict eclipses and the locations of these bodies - Google the antikythera mechanism for the details.
How then did the "fundamental preconditions for modern science" come about that this knowledge was lost for 1700 years until Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci etc challenged the Pope at risk to their lives?  
Did not the church so value the elimination of knowledge amongst non clerics that it even forbade the publication of the Bible other than in Latin?
Please tell us how the Inquisition led to modern scientific knowledge?


Avatar for Mark2

Mark2
@Russ @Nico Not quite fair, Russ, the studious habits and institutions established by Christians (after being given a push from Islam, which hurriedly backed away from science once the fantasy parts of their beliefs came under threat) were consequential in establishing many of the basics which led to the scientific revolution. 

That is not to say Christianity, as a whole, supported the outcomes of the studies for much of the time, however. Much of the church (both clergy and lay) opposed such investigations. Many still do (with far less excuse).
Avatar for Big John

Big John
@Russ @Nico  What a load of Rubbish. Christianity has not changed because of science..
Science does not have all the answers as each discovery leads to more questions 
Avatar for Argus

Argus
The Catholic Church resisted scientific analysis including the persecution Galileo, one of the world's greatest physicists for heresy for suggesting that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and that the Earth revolved around the Sun. This was because scientific analysis was contrary to Scripture, and to be contrary to Scripture meant heresy and burning at the stake. 
In 1600 Bruno Giordano was burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy  for advocating a similar proposition. The Inquisition drove a stake through his face pinning  his tongue so he couldn't speak before he was burnt alive. In 1415 the Inquisition burned similar heretics  including Han Hus and Jerome of Prague in a similar fashion.
Contrary to your proposition, the preconditions for modern science to flourish can be traced back to the Epicureans and Lucretius 2000 years earlier, and the church did everything in its power to suppress such knowledge. Any advance in science has been  to drag a church kicking and screaming in denial  including the fierce opposition to Darwin. Science has succeeded despite the best efforts of the Christianity as represented by the Church.
Avatar for Andrew

Andrew
@Argus The scientific establishment sought the persecution of Galileo, the Catholic Church merely meekly acquiesced. 

Giordano was punished for his theological heresy - arguing for pantheism for instance, not for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy. The likes of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague were likewise punished for their rejection of Catholicism.

As for opposition to Darwin, there was actually a lot of support amongst churchmen who rejected the Bible. Nothing has really changed there.
Avatar for Nico

Nico
@Richard @Nico  Richard just because you though a remark with abandon it does not make you erudite or intelligent.
It only make you ignorant of history and that I admit provides the self assurance you require.
Here is a short syllogism to make you ponder but you also have to read more than the God Delusion.

Greek Philosophy culminates in the work of Plato, which then his student Aristotle creates into different fields(we use his classification today on Uni Departments).
Neo Platonist and the Greek church Fathers steeped in Greek learning integrate much of Greek thought into the Christian Faith (they make it essentially what it is). Augustine does the same in the West later on.
The Arabs take from the Greeks and have a brief interlude of wonderful science but it is back to the Christian lands that its flourishes.

You know why because like Plato Christianity has an unfaltering belief that the Universe is intelligible and without that belief studying philosophy or science would have being a fools errand. Now if you read Plato you will see in his dialogues that his world system was identical with the Christian one. Read the Timeaus but even in the Republic it stand there starring you in the face.

Now I am shortening the history quite a bit as it passed through people like Aquinas Berkeley Newton Galileo (all Christians) and heaps more.

Avatar for Aubrey

Aubrey
The atheist proclaims that there s no God because he/she has examined all known data and cannot find God. All possible knowledge includes what the atheist knows and what is not yet known. Therefore to state that God does not exist implies that the atheist knows what he/ she does not know yet. Hence the dogmatic statement that God does not exist is most illogical. At best the doubter could take an agnostic viewpoint. 

Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Aubrey A fail on logic Aubrey. All known knowledge [odd term] does not by definition include all possible knowledge past present or future.The atheist simply states a lack of belief based on present knowledge; the claim does not entail future knowledge. Your argument is unsound and invalid.
Avatar for Tim

Tim
You sound like Donald Rumsfeld.
At what point do religious people accept that we have looked far enough. We have looked to the heavens, through the time of distance to the beginning of the universe without finding God. We have looked into the fabric of matter, the building blocks of the subatomic and not found God. We have three milenia of history and no corobable historical evidence for gods existance.
The logical concussion is god is a construct of humanity. It is no more than an idea. But humans being as we are religion has evolved to supprt and protect the corporal wealth of the priesthood and the states that suport them.
Avatar for Michael

Michael
There are known knowns and known unknowns and unknown knowns. Its all clear as mud ! G-d help us !
Avatar for John

John
@Aubrey "No god until the existence of such a being is proved". That seems logical and sound as a position. That means not believing now, and not believing until the evidence appears.It is not the non-believer's task to prove a negative - that there is no god. An atheist can say, "I see no evidence of such a being, so I do not believe." End of story - until the evidence is found, or god gives one a clip over the ear, whichever comes first.
Avatar for Rob

Rob
@Aubrey I think the problem that theists have is that they don't have the capacity to contemplate that there is no God. Therefore they tend to assume that an atheist is necessarily arguing against the existence of God. This is the reason I don't call myself an atheist, because it's too easily to be labelled.
What I can say for my own part is that based on the knowledge I have, I see no reason to posit the existence a God
Avatar for Aubrey

Aubrey
@Richard @Aubrey My claim is far from illogical because the atheist proclaims there is no God revealed in history or in the future. Current facts include those we know about as well as those we do not know. Clearly then for the atheist to declare there is no God implies knowledge of what is yet unknown. 
Avatar for Rob

Rob
@Audrey the illogical bit is creating a flakey definition of atheism so that you can argue against it.
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Aubrey Show me proof of your God that doesn't involve the words "faith" or "belief" or "feeling" and you'll have a convert but until then, I'll remain a heathen.
Avatar for Umberto

Umberto
To be fair to Hitchens, he did say there are no atheists in fox holes..

Bert

Avatar for Russ

Russ
Just as many in foxholes calling to their long dead mothers as God however neither will come and save them. Both a product of fear.
Avatar for Richard IV

Richard IV
Well silly me.
I thought he meant there are no atheists in foxholes because atheist are too smart to find themselves in one. I stand corrected
Avatar for Richard

Richard
" Make a joyful noise unto the Lord all ye lands, serve the Lord with gladness, come before his presence with singing..."  Mr Sheridan cites the "strange phenomenon of joy, the even stranger delight of humour..." and so on in support of the existence of some sort of god.  Why is it then that new or re-born religions seem to be so co-existent with a complete lack of joy and a rigid humourlessness.   I don't mean just the obvious puritans of the English revolution or early America, but it seems to happen also with other religions, both theistic and non-theistic. Compare, for example, the reborn mullahs of present day Iran, with Omar Khayyam of the Rubiayyat - full of a love of life, wine, women and good times.  I now I'd rather spend time with the mediaeval Persian than the contemporary Iranians.
Then there's the modern progressives, with their identity politics - seen so well just this week with some Mother Grundy (as my mother would have called her) going ape at another mother for letting her daughter dress up for Halloween as a Disney Polynesian character.  Not much joy there.
Then there are the Marxists - all lacking much in the humour field, which is strange, seeing that old Karl was known as a great comedian in his day. I remember reading a history book back in my high school days which ranked him as the funniest of the Marx brothers, though I don't know why they didn't give him a part in A Day at the Races.  At least the kulaks in communist Russia thought he was a great joke.
Avatar for Joe

Joe
Greg, I agree with you totally.  There has to be a God. I've read the first few books of the old testament and the representation of God as a cruel, sadistic, unforgiving blood spilling monster to all but "his chosen" proves it. All the pain and suffering that is in the world today especially against children has to be intentional and directed from above, below or wherever he hides. It cannot be happening by chance. Remember the words of The Lord's Prayer "....thy will be done on earth..." well, it's being done every second of every day and children are suffering and dying.    
Avatar for Brian

Brian
There seems to be in the article, and many of the comments, that "God" is religion, or at least Christianity. God is a word we use to describe the indescribable. Religions, over the thousands of years of researched history and anthropology, have existed in their multitudes with all believers believing theirs is the truth, or real, and superior to others. God is a concept which we have tried to explain via many different modes, from sacrificing virgins to killing pigs, from believing in afterlife in heaven to being recycled in a different form. Gods have been created from objects, animal worship, places, and mysterious nothingness. Greg has tried to be objective, but his christianity shines through. I see God as the enormity of the universe, the wonders of the world, the thoughts that enable me to think in a rational manner. I do not see organised religion in the hands of emirs, priests, shamans, monks and their followers as god or it's representative. They profess their multitude of truths as being the only truth and have used these truths in the course of known history to fight opposing truths to the death. They are using the word god to narrow the discussion to a finite view whereas god is infinite and can never be understood. God is a concept that people try to rationalise via beliefs to the exclusion of other beliefs, usually incorporating power over others to conform and reject opposing dogma. To believe in god, not someone else's  idea of god, is not atheism, but merely accepting that no one can explain the unexplainable, especially priests, journalists and those who declare comments like mine to be heretical and agnostic. In my simple world view, god is in my children and grandchildren's eyes, in the life choices I have taken, in the world around me. It is not the Torah, Koran, Bible or Budda's many missives on how we understand the universe.They have many fine messages, like many other books. They also have terrible messages of anger, hate and inhumanity. They were written and have been interpreted by men of different times and views to me.They were blind to my time and beliefs. To grasp their "truths" blindly, is to allow the blind to lead.  
Avatar for Robert

Robert
What a mixup - this rambling, irrational, intellectually vapid exegesis was surely meant for The Catholic Weekly. Sad, even so, that the writer evidently has never shared in - or chooses to ignore - the Enlightenment, aka The Age of Reason.

- Rob on Park  :-)

Avatar for Nico

Nico
The enlightenment culminated in Wi and WII. It was clear delusion where European countries far outpaced their knowledge of man ('anthropos') with their ability to control nature and became efficient killing machines.
Greg's article shows that he has much more erudite and full understanding of history than you exhibit in your opinion.
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Nico Wrong again Nico, still on a roll, still unsubstantiated statements, still no supporting argument but great faith in whatever it is.
Avatar for Robert

Robert
@Nico No, Nico, the article says infinitely more about the effectiveness of Greg's (probably childhood) indoctrination - and perhaps your own? - than any erudition or understanding of history.

- Rob on Park  :-)
Avatar for Michael

Michael
If G-d is love ( as the author of the 4th gospel concludes ) what are we fighting about ?
Avatar for Chris

Chris
How many people would believe in a god if religious instruction were banned until a person reach 18 years of age?
I think the whole concept of religion would die out very quickly.
Avatar for Anne N

Anne N
I have two questions for those who have proof  God  does not and has   never existed.

What does  BC and AD mean?
How do you intend to remove all traces of either out of your  lives?
After all you wouldn't want to be labelled as a hypocrite would you?

Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Anne N What? Anne N, are you serious? Or is this a satire?
First, atheists do not try to prove God/gods/goddesses exist. The simple position is that they have no belief in the claim. The usual position is lack of evidence for the existence of God/gods/goddesses or Spaghetti Monsters.
Second, are you actually claiming that a calendar naming convention explicable historically proves the existence of God? In which case, does the replacement of BC/AD by BCE and CE disprove the existence of God?
Do try to explain.
Avatar for Anne N

Anne N
"Do try to explain."  Why?
Ask all those who haven't tried to remove something based on fiction.
Why was the Julian Calendar  replaced by the Gregorian Calendar? 
Surely someone  had a reason for the wording of BC and AD.
Why so many billions of people over the ages have been happy to trust in God.
Try it sometime you just might understand what it all means.
Avatar for Richard

Richard
@Anne N Good point. And just yesterday, I shouted Jesus H Christ when I hit my thumb with the hammer too. What more proof do we need?
Avatar for Catherine

Catherine
A former-vigorous-atheist-turned-Christian:
(Review of “Miracles“): CS Lewis challenges the rationalists, agnostics, and deists on their own grounds and makes out an impressive case for the irrationality of their assumptions by positing:
"Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts: we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question."

Avatar for Mark

Mark
@Catherine What about these beautiful quotes from the late and great Christopher Hitchens:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.  
Avatar for Mark

Mark
@Catherine And this one just about sums up this article:

To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid
Avatar for Argus

Argus
@Catherine Those who assume the miracles cannot happen, are not wasting their time in testing the underlying assumptions, because inevitably they are subjective and delusional. I for one would be happy to see a miracle or a glass of water was change into a Shiraz or or a Cabernet, and on that basis I would convert to Christianity tomorrow. 

Needless to say nobody is even tried to do this on Penn and Teller so you will be unlikely to see any example of it other than the febrile ramblings of early Christians written well after the event by people who are not there. 

Having read the statement attributed to CS Lewis 3 times, I see no logical inference other than the self-justification of a position already established in advance.
Avatar for Barrie

Barrie
@Argus @Catherine Since when were the disciples not present with Jesus and documented what they heard and experienced. Miracles are events which the human mind cannot comprehend in its natural world. Believers acknowledge miracles through faith, unbelievers mock. 
Avatar for Carole

Carole
My one responsibly as a Christian is to live a fruitful life in the simplicity that is in Christ which is summed up so clearly and so simply by the prophet Micah: 'To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' [6 v 8]. So simple, yet so sublime.

Avatar for John

John
Pascal's Wager argues that the optimum position is to believe in god. its worth a quick read.

Avatar for Richard

Richard
@John Not Pascal's wager again. The probability is not 0.5 John. The more alternative gods and goddesses, and the list is very very long, the less likely you are to win your bet. And the greater the chance of picking the wrong god, and therefore the more chance you have of losing very badly and finding yourself punished for gambling on the wrong horse/golden calf or whatever.
Go with the evidence instead and there is no evidence, plausible argument or even good odds for your choice of Pascal's god.
Show More Comments

vv
↧
Search
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 585

Trending Articles

Practice Sheet of Right form of verbs for HSC Students

September 22, 2019, 11:40 pm

Download: FK ft Shenky – Nakuyewa ”Prod by: Shenky”

February 16, 2017, 4:24 pm

How to win at Markstrat (Markstrat Tips and Tricks) – Vodites

January 5, 2014, 10:34 pm

Ominde Commission Report and Recommendations – Ominde Report of 1964

March 16, 2015, 5:14 am

Bureau of Internal Revenue: Regional Offices (Directory)

January 9, 2014, 11:06 pm

GO 53 on Enhancement of Ex-gratia upto 5 Lakhs Toddy Tappers in Telangana

March 26, 2017, 11:23 pm

Cakewalk CA-2A Leveling Amplifier v2.0.1.97 WiN, v2.0.1.96 OSX Incl Keygen

October 17, 2016, 7:20 am

Mp3 Download: Mdu - Kunjenjenjena

December 7, 2017, 8:16 am

How the kill the job , when DTP request running for long hours.

July 26, 2013, 2:41 am

Microsoft Intune から展開しているアプリのアップデートについて

October 17, 2016, 4:11 am

18-year-old girl was beaten for half an hour by two Northampton men in 'an...

September 1, 2017, 10:00 pm

Car crash in Dunton Bassett leaves driver in critical condition

October 7, 2014, 7:51 am

Macky 2, Two Others In Road Accident

March 29, 2015, 5:34 am

Application log 00000000000000089514: Could not convert queue DLVST90CLNT

May 14, 2015, 11:27 pm

Detroit mafia: D’Anna Brothers agree to plea deal

April 21, 2016, 6:56 am

Delivery block field greyed out using VA02

January 26, 2016, 2:52 pm

Muloraki Au

June 22, 2016, 1:44 am

【個人撮影】スマホのプライベート映像♪「中に出さないで///」カラオケ屋での生ハメ撮りが流出ｗ【リベンジポルノ】＠PornHub

October 12, 2017, 2:23 pm

BREAKING NEWS: Diamond Platnumz Is Reported Dead After Ghastly Car Accident

February 9, 2018, 4:56 am

FIAT 500 B0111 B0112

July 5, 2018, 10:31 am
Search