quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

Really? I don't, and I invented him. I don't, however, have a monumental edifice of reasoning behind my not believing him; I haven't thought about the matter for many years, I've read nothing at all about the matter - I just don't believe in him because it's a manifestly silly idea to believe in him.

I've come to notice that the one thing that religionists cannot tolerate is atheists finding their beliefs silly - their most central belief of all, that is: that there's this big thing in the sky, a controller, of some specified sort and with these or other characteristics. In many countries, people are locked up for expressing that. In a few, they'll even kill you for saying it. In the West, these days, it's increasingly coming under the heading of 'disrespecting' a religion and governments are becoming punitive about it. But - what the hell choice do I have? With some things, all I need to do - can do - is realise that something is silly - then move on with my life to think about other things.

You may be right but I think most people are going to be upset when anyone suggests any idea of theirs is silly. Human nature being what it is. I also think that's the reason so many athiests act like angry little children when people ignore their oh so sage advice about god. They just can't grasp the idea that they have told people there is no god and despite the fact that they keep crowing about how uber intelligent they are, people still ignore them and continue to worship. They have created huge websites going into detail about how every religion out there is wrong and people still don't listen to them. Must be very frustrating. Personally I am not sure why they care so much.

Where do you get this stuff ? I have never in my decades young life, ever seen atheists act like angry little children. Never have received any atheist's 'sage' advice about any god. (in fact never read or heard anybody offer 'advice' about something they don't believe even exists) Never ever seen anybody let alone atheists crow on about their 'uber' intelligence.

Could you link to these 'huge' websites you refer to ? Most atheists I know and in fact, ALL atheists I know...don't care that much at all about theism or atheism. In fact, in my lifetime, it has become obvious to me that the theists care much more than atheists about the idea that there are such people...as atheists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

They certainly go to a lot of trouble to get the message out for a group that doesn't care but maybe you are right and they were just really bored and decided to create a website crowing about their intelligence.

quote:


As to everything being down to the "religionists" perhaps it would help if you defined what you mean by that. Kinda reminds me of another poster who blames everything on the 'nutsuckers'. Now he hasn't been able to define it, maybe you can do better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I never had any difficulty with that term 'nutsacker' after the poster in question defined it for me. But I'm surprised that you're such a stickler for intellectual rigour on this one - it's never seemed to trouble you at all to define much of what you rail against. A 'religionist' is someone who supports the ideology of religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I never had any difficulty with that term 'nutsacker' after the poster in question defined it for me. But I'm surprised that you're such a stickler for intellectual rigour on this one - it's never seemed to trouble you at all to define much of what you rail against. A 'religionist' is someone who supports the ideology of religion.

I guess that as a religionist that does not at all identify with how you have described religionists, I must be doing it wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

They certainly go to a lot of trouble to get the message out for a group that doesn't care but maybe you are right and they were just really bored and decided to create a website crowing about their intelligence.

I think some do. I think they see it as more crucial than do I: religion, after all, is considered to be the ideology behind so many of the horrors of the world. As for intelligence - well, as far as I can see, these days the cult of ignorance is in the ascendancy: the more we use our "common sense" and the less we actually learn anything (especially anything new), somehow, the better and wiser the people we are. This is one reason why Trump is loved so much. Religionists remain the smug ones, THB. Their attempt to turn themselves into the 'oppressed' is pisspoor at best.

quote:


As to everything being down to the "religionists" perhaps it would help if you defined what you mean by that. Kinda reminds me of another poster who blames everything on the 'nutsuckers'. Now he hasn't been able to define it, maybe you can do better.

I never had any difficulty with that term 'nutsacker' after the poster in question defined it for me. But I'm surprised that you're such a stickler for intellectual rigour on this one - it's never seemed to trouble you at all to define much of what you rail against. A 'religionist' is someone who supports the ideology of religion.

quote:


I'm sorry Peon, I wasn't aware you were confused. Why don't you link the word you are having problems with and I will try to define it for you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the challenge I put on the table on the first page was for someone to demonstrate how or what genetics has to do with religion.

Do you have the answer because I have a really hard time stretching my imagination that far?

Time to start some stretching exercises then. The link below cites three different twin studies:

The Genetics of Religious Belief

The take home message from these studies is that genetic factors play a significant role in individual religious beliefs and behaviors. Shared environmental (familial) experiences have a key contribution during childhood and adolescence but wane over time.

A fourth twin study is reported here...

Study Shows Genetics Plays Role in Religious Inclination

The recent study focused on adult twins who were raised apart who were then compared for their religiousness. The study suggests that genes contribute 40% of the variability of a person's religiousness.

The study referenced above appeared in the Journal of Personality and is excerpted here.

K.

well I have to call bullshit since there are only opinions of studies not the studies themselves and the conclusions appear highly speculative. This to me was the equivalent of reading the nist reports on 911 in which they too made grandiose leaps of ASSumptions, much of which today are proven bullshit. That said you need to produce an actual study that actually shows real data not just an opinion of an opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I never had any difficulty with that term 'nutsacker' after the poster in question defined it for me. But I'm surprised that you're such a stickler for intellectual rigour on this one - it's never seemed to trouble you at all to define much of what you rail against. A 'religionist' is someone who supports the ideology of religion.

I guess that as a religionist that does not at all identify with how you have described religionists, I must be doing it wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

[....] atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

I don't know whether a deity exists or not. I am open to the suggestion that one may exist but as of now I have not encountered any compelling reason to believe that one exists. My position is significantly different to that of a person who insists that no deity exists. I accept the possibility that a deity may exist, they deny this possibility categorically.

Therefore the claim you advance, and upon which your argument relies in this thread is invalid.

The claim I advanced was a response to a dispute by another member of my earlier statements. They are unable as in none of them are capable of advancing their claims against the claim I asserted. Apparently they are also illiterate since they seem to have a need to be taken in hand and walked through the process like I one needs to do to teach handicapped children.

That said:

The whole grade school argument that atheists by negatively stating 'lack of belief in the existence of God' has some kind of distinction from positively stating 'atheists believe there is no God' somehow absolves them of any responsibility or obligation and is most often used to promote their fanciful premise that atheism is not a religion because they lack belief is patently absurd if not a clear demonstration of a retarded intellect.

[blah blah blah ......].

No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card.

Personally I feel the drivel you have posted is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response.

But I am interested to know how you are so certain that the question : "Does a deity exist?" is answerable rationally. How is it that humans, with our flawed and limited intellects, are able to determine the existence of some deity or force completely outside the limits of our existence? Particularly as there is no physical evidence to support an affirmative answer to the question.

If one claims (as for example Christians do) that this deity is omnipotent eternal and omnipresent, why is there no physical evidence that can irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? And if said deity is in fact supernatural, how can humans whose knowledge and experience is limited to the 'natural' world, identify, and accurately attribute specific qualities* to this supernatural force?

It is up to believers to present convincing answers to these questions if they wish to have their beliefs taken seriously. I am still awaiting a rational argument that might convince me that humans are capable of recognising a deity if one exists. OTOH there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that humans have a long and varied track record of creating/inventing deities regardless of whether they exist or not.


*eg. omnipotence, eternal existence, ....... qualities that are outside the range of human experience and potential, 'supernatural' attributes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Since expressing a view that god is a fiction is an exercise of a persona's first amendment right, you do seem to be making yourself look pretty fucking clueless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card.

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
But I am interested to know how you are so certain that the question : "Does a deity exist?" is answerable rationally. How is it that humans, with our flawed and limited intellects, are able to determine the existence of some deity or force completely outside the limits of our existence? Particularly as there is no physical evidence to support an affirmative answer to the question.

If one claims (as for example Christians do) that this deity is omnipotent eternal and omnipresent, why is there no physical evidence that can irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? And if said deity is in fact supernatural, how can humans whose knowledge and experience is limited to the 'natural' world, identify, and accurately attribute specific qualities* to this supernatural force?

It is up to believers to present convincing answers to these questions if they wish to have their beliefs taken seriously. I am still awaiting a rational argument that might convince me that humans are capable of recognising a deity if one exists. OTOH there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that humans have a long and varied track record of creating/inventing deities regardless of whether they exist or not.


*eg. omnipotence, eternal existence, ....... qualities that are outside the range of human experience and potential, 'supernatural' attributes.

Drivel? Well the first thing we need to do is to sort out all your inconsistencies and oxymorons.

So you want to know if a deity exists and your measuring stick is physical evidence, which I presume as far as you are concerned if you cant punch it, it does not exist? Is that it?

So fine, lets start here. Does the letter 'A' exist? Yes__ No__ lay out your proofs.

The reason I am asking is that I have never been able to touch the letter 'A' or 'B' or 'C' yet I know they exist. Dont they?

That is a good starting point to determine if I even want to attempt debating the deity matter with you in the first place.

supernatural 'force'? where does that come from?

force completely outside the limits of our existence? the only thing I am aware of that is outside my existence is nonexistence. so you apparently really mean to say outside your cognitive abilities or comprehension?

irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? Describe what you would consider acceptable irrefutable proof [if you can]. I presume as I said earlier you are looking for something you can stub your toe on?

ah.... supernatural, what do you think that is.

Establish some groundwork for the basis of your arguments if you can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
...
In fact they are very unhappy with the 1st amendment which reserves my right to be free from atheists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Since expressing a view that god is a fiction is an exercise of a persona's first amendment right, you do seem to be making yourself look pretty fucking clueless.

quote:

Or it may be the case that the question is answerable, but not answerable rationally. In which case, any rational consideration of a deity's existence would appear to be equally pointless.

quote:

So you want to know if a deity exists and your measuring stick is physical evidence, which I presume as far as you are concerned if you cant punch it, it does not exist? Is that it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card.

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
But I am interested to know how you are so certain that the question : "Does a deity exist?" is answerable rationally. How is it that humans, with our flawed and limited intellects, are able to determine the existence of some deity or force completely outside the limits of our existence? Particularly as there is no physical evidence to support an affirmative answer to the question.

If one claims (as for example Christians do) that this deity is omnipotent eternal and omnipresent, why is there no physical evidence that can irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? And if said deity is in fact supernatural, how can humans whose knowledge and experience is limited to the 'natural' world, identify, and accurately attribute specific qualities* to this supernatural force?

It is up to believers to present convincing answers to these questions if they wish to have their beliefs taken seriously. I am still awaiting a rational argument that might convince me that humans are capable of recognising a deity if one exists. OTOH there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that humans have a long and varied track record of creating/inventing deities regardless of whether they exist or not.


*eg. omnipotence, eternal existence, ....... qualities that are outside the range of human experience and potential, 'supernatural' attributes.

Drivel? Well the first thing we need to do is to sort out all your inconsistencies and oxymorons.

So you want to know if a deity exists and your measuring stick is physical evidence, which I presume as far as you are concerned if you cant punch it, it does not exist? Is that it?

So fine, lets start here. Does the letter 'A' exist? Yes__ No__ lay out your proofs.

The reason I am asking is that I have never been able to touch the letter 'A' or 'B' or 'C' yet I know they exist. Dont they?

That is a good starting point to determine if I even want to attempt debating the deity matter with you in the first place.

supernatural 'force'? where does that come from?

force completely outside the limits of our existence? the only thing I am aware of that is outside my existence is nonexistence. so you apparently really mean to say outside your cognitive abilities or comprehension?

irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? Describe what you would consider acceptable irrefutable proof [if you can]. I presume as I said earlier you are looking for something you can stub your toe on?

ah.... supernatural, what do you think that is.

Establish some groundwork for the basis of your arguments if you can.

I am not making an argument. I am asking you a question or two.

These questions of mine are : 'Is the question: 'Does a deity exist?' answerable rationally?' And 'If so, how can humans recognise the existence of said deity?'

Some questions are answerable rationally. Others aren't. It seems to me that we ought to establish if the question of a deity's possible existence is answerable rationally before going on to consider whether a deity actually exists or can exist. Obviously if the answer is 'No, we cannot answer that question rationally' then discussions of a deity's potential existence or otherwise would be pointless.

Or it may be the case that the question is answerable, but not answerable rationally. In which case, any rational consideration of a deity's existence would appear to be equally pointless.

These matters obviously precede any rational consideration of the existence of a deity/deities. So I look forward to your response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


Hume, Kant, and Rational Theism Hugo Meynell A graduate of Eton and of King's College, Cambridge, Hugo Meynell took his Ph.D from Cambridge University in 1963. He began his teaching career at the University of Leeds in 1963, where he remained until 1981, when he assumed a professorship at the University of Calgary, Canada, where he teaches today. He has authored ten books, including God and the World, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan, The Intelligible Universe, and The Theology of Bernard Lonergan, and has published some 100 articles in journals such as Philosophy, Philosophical Quarterly, Analysis, Mind, Religious Studies, and others. Professor Meynell is also a skilled musician and has a forthcoming book on The Art of Handel's Operas.