Ship of fools

[tonea2003]

No,it was a rather simple question which received the required explanation.
Which is more than we have ever got from you.
Don't you dare try to assume the intellectual high ground with me,you pious prick.
I have challenged your intransigent notions of belief from the start of this thread,with nothing of substance offered in response.
You have offended me and others from the very inception of this thread.
Anyone of character and substance would have offered me an apology for what I have suffered at the hands of your faith,and demonstrate a degree of contrition.
But that just isn't part of your twisted repertoire,is it?
If you really wish to make amends and atone for what I have been through,please just go away.
I doubt you will - I can but hope.

I posted this at the beginning of this thread

It is very sad to hear of your early experience, I can see how such evil could colour your subsequent view of religion.

but you will have some lame excuse of it being god's way of teaching us lessons and we will all be better for it in the long run and then you go back to your happy land of blind faith. my mind boggles at the illogical logic

 

[Matty]

I disagree. Atheism is essentially parasitical. It feeds off positive belief and mirrors the theology it opposes. Nijinsky, Squirty, Matty, Stoner, Stanley, Tonea etc are within sight of the Ark of Salvation but fail to recognise it. I'm just trying to help them.

By definition atheism will be affect by the belief that God exists. If believers hadn't invented the myth that there's a God then atheists wouldn't have anything to reject. You can't attack atheism for being parasitical when believers created the reason for it's very existance.

The Ark of Salvation is so far away from me I can't even see it. I'd imagine that's probably because, like your fairytale being, it doesn't exist. Salvation is something I don't require, I've nothing that I require saving from.

 

[Matty]

johnny are you ever going to answer my question or not?

genuinely interested to what you think is proof/evidence of what us boys and girls on the ship of fools think isn't there

I thought I covered it in my reply to you and Matty some time ago. I personally believe that the existence of God cannot be proved or refuted empirically but there are some who do and one of the most persuasive is Alvin Plantinga. His argument follow Godel, Liebniz and ultimately Anselm.

None of whom can actually prove anything. It's all assumption based on a whole host of things that can't be measured or quantified.

 

[Matty]

so let me get this right you believe something that cannot be proved, has no concrete evidence for...why?
i find that oh so strange,
so glad i am a fool

Depends what you mean by "concrete evidence" of course. My belief in God is as the abiding presence of light (intelligence, even mathematics) in all things, and as the source of the (to us) inscrutable order, power, and majesty of nature. Almost all human beings in history have shared in it. I find it strange that you find it strange.

So your proof is a whole host of things that have absolutely nothing to do with anything? "The abiding presence of light"?!! "Majesty of Nature"?!!

What you're essentially saying is that reasons for the patterns, the intelligence and the "inscrutable order" of things in the universe escapes you, so you've decided, because you can't come up with a rational reason for these things occurring they simply must have been created by God? That's entirely no proof whatsoever.

 

[johnny crossan]

Depends what you mean by "concrete evidence" of course. My belief in God is as the abiding presence of light (intelligence, even mathematics) in all things, and as the source of the (to us) inscrutable order, power, and majesty of nature. Almost all human beings in history have shared in it. I find it strange that you find it strange.

So your proof is a whole host of things that have absolutely nothing to do with anything? "The abiding presence of light"?!! "Majesty of Nature"?!!

What you're essentially saying is that reasons for the patterns, the intelligence and the "inscrutable order" of things in the universe escapes you, so you've decided, because you can't come up with a rational reason for these things occurring they simply must have been created by God? That's entirely no proof whatsoever.

You make the same point as tonea and my reply is the same. It is not a question of proof in the scientific sense. Like you I find the ontological argument difficult to understand once it left St Anselm.

so because nature is beautiful and powerful and the creatures within it have intelligence is your proof?
if so how come. it dont make sense to me but then i'm just a fool

I suppose informally they are the grounds for my belief, along with the limit of language to express the transcendent.

 

[ElanJo]

My original discussion of Dawkins was not an endorsement. It was in another thread where i suggested someone should read it, I said it would make him think! That makes me far from unreasonable, just the opposite in fact.
What has been proved in this thread though, by all the other posters, is that it is you who is actually the unreasonable one.

Your quote was on the unprovocatively titled Elanjo thread "Is Religion A Load of Balls"

That's why I mentioned it. It took me from being a sit on the fence agnostic to a full on atheist. Then lost my job when the company got took over by a bunch of religious zealots who believe the Earth is only 7000 years old. ffs.

not an endorsement a "thinking suggestion" eh?

Sorry, not me.

...but thanks for having me on your mind tho ;)

My threads include hits such as "The Genius of Darwin / Dawkins The God Delusion" and "Johnny's evil God"

 

[johnny crossan]

Apologies ElanJo, I can't think why I thought that. No doubt your special congregation are flooding onto your new thread attacking the Bible as I write. Enjoy their foolishness.

 

[tonea2003]

Apologies ElanJo, I can't think why I thought that. No doubt your special congregation are flooding onto your new thread attacking the Bible as I write. Enjoy their foolishness.

there you go again with your insults, do you ever stop, take a good look at yourself
you have to accept that people like myself will always question a book that professes to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but, when none of its supposed wonders are proved in any way shape or form.

and we will continue to do so

 

[Matty]

So, to summarise. Johnny doesn't actually have 'proof' as the rest of us would define it, what he has are a series of unquantifiables such as "nature is beautiful and powerful and the creatures within it have intelligence" and "limit of language to express the transcendent" and uses these as grounds for his beliefs.

Well, with all due respect Johnny, I need more than that to convince me there is an all powerful being that created everything and everyone and looks over us. The limit of language to explain the transcendent isn't a surprise at all, the entire reason for people believing in God and 'transcendence' is because they needed an answer to things they couldn't grasp for themselves, and God was what they cam up with. By definition you're not going to be able to fully explain something that you've made up. How do you fully explain something that, in reality, doesn't actually happen or exist?

You're never going to convince me or, I'd suspect, any of the other people posting in this thread so I really don't know why you continue to try. The fact that religious people see it as their "moral and spiritual duty" to try and convert non-believers and "save them" is one of my major issues with organised religion. You believe, we don't, just leave it at that, your attempts to make me a believer are a waste of your time, and my time. They're unwanted, unneeded and unconvincing.

 

[johnny crossan]

So, to summarise. Johnny doesn't actually have 'proof' as the rest of us would define it, what he has are a series of unquantifiables such as "nature is beautiful and powerful and the creatures within it have intelligence" and "limit of language to express the transcendent" and uses these as grounds for his beliefs.

Well, with all due respect Johnny, I need more than that to convince me there is an all powerful being that created everything and everyone and looks over us. The limit of language to explain the transcendent isn't a surprise at all, the entire reason for people believing in God and 'transcendence' is because they needed an answer to things they couldn't grasp for themselves, and God was what they cam up with. By definition you're not going to be able to fully explain something that you've made up. How do you fully explain something that, in reality, doesn't actually happen or exist?

You're never going to convince me or, I'd suspect, any of the other people posting in this thread so I really don't know why you continue to try. The fact that religious people see it as their "moral and spiritual duty" to try and convert non-believers and "save them" is one of my major issues with organised religion. You believe, we don't, just leave it at that, your attempts to make me a believer are a waste of your time, and my time. They're unwanted, unneeded and unconvincing.

For me much of organized religion has always been about social control, that seems undeniable. Whether or not there is a God is a different and, I believe supremely important, question. It is also very complex and as an open-minded atheist I would welcome your thoughts on the pilgrimage of Anthony Flew from atheism to theism. He was a key figure in my own early scepticism and his later writings have influenced me a great deal. Apart from the Wiki references there is a another useful link here.<a class="postlink" href="http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf</a>