Santa V God

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

... I have looked at his side (perhaps not as deeply) and have not been convinced. Therein I see a difference, coming to a reasoned conclusion and coming to a determined conclusion. The former by weighing *all* evidence, the latter by dismissing and ignoring contrary evidence.

The central tenet of atheism - that there is no G-d is mere dogma. Where is there a place for "evidence" with regard to this issue?

Religions have wreaked havoc, but how dare these dirty little atheist heathens point it out!!

Atheism has wreaked havoc, especially in the 20th century. Are you saying atheism should't be held to the same standard you are holding religion to?

[17th Angel]

Cannot escape

[greymare]

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You try to impose a restriction of definition that suits your purpose.

Again, you agreed with me (and Thomas) that the existence of G-d cannot be disconfirmed. Has that changed?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

How is this different from saying that one should convict people of crimes with nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence or even made-up evidence?

It is you who makes arbitary decisions about what evidence matters. Here is another example:

books like the Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching may very well be still sells millions of copies.

Isn't Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" a best seller in the UK? (And don't you have a copy?)

The Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching have nothing to do with a monotheistic G-d concept. Likewise, the fact that there is a market for them has nothing to do with the cultural transmission of doctrines concerned with a traditional monotheistic G-d (the focus of your original question).


New Age philosophy is not religion. In fact, that is a common criticism of the newage movement in general and the Celestine Prophecy in particular:

Through the teaching of New Age spirituality and moral relativism, we've removed God from the potential answers to the ultimate questions of life. Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose for the universe in which we live. Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose to give meaning to our individual lives. Without God, we also lose any possibility for life after death. When you remove the hope of heaven, you remove the ultimate value and purpose of life.

Source: Celestine Prophecy


People explore their spirituality in many ways. I suspect there are several people on this board who dabble in the occult in the sense of reading about it. That does't mean they practice divination or sorcery. Nor does it mean that occult philosophies become their religion.

My point, friend Tao, is that you see "evidence" where you want to see it.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by greymare

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

You think only half of mankind is to blame for the worlds ways?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by greymare

Im sorry, Netti but how has Aetheism wreaked havoc?? (Im not being a smart arse, im just ignorant to this particular theory)

Communism, an atheist ideology, is responsible for millions of deaths (according to one estimate 150 million) and the wholesale destruction of culture.

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Alex P

You think only half of mankind is to blame for the worlds ways?

so, is half the world athiest??? Did they do a poll and I missed out??

Lives have been lost because of religion and because of greed and because of power and because of humans being evil enough to think they can control everything.......................can we agree on that??

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by greymare

so, is half the world athiest??? Did they do a poll and I missed out??

Lives have been lost because of religion and because of greed and because of power and because of humans being evil enough to think they can control everything.......................can we agree on that??

Greymare, check out this chart:
(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:.

How many can be described as religious? How many can be described as irreligious? How many involve institutionalized religion? How many involve institutionalized atheism? Look at the body count numbers, and compare the counts that can be ascribed to institutionalized religion, to institutionalized atheism, and the irreligious ones. Look at the dates the atrocities took place, and compare the 20th century counts to the rest of history, then come to your own conclusion.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The central tenet of atheism - that there is no G-d is mere dogma. Where is there a place for "evidence" with regard to this issue?

Like I said there are more ways than one to approach proof. You still doggedly try to stick to proving or disproving God despite me now having said several times I do not care about that question. What I focus on, that which can be studied and the facts discerned, is the validity of belief in man himself. This is the last time I say it.

Atheism has wreaked havoc, especially in the 20th century. Are you saying atheism should't be held to the same standard you are holding religion to?

Absolute bollocks. There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute. Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself. Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him and not an atheism run riot. A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power. It matters not whether that dogma is Islam or communism, the tenet of my point still holds the same.

I am getting tired of refuting these same old assertions time and time again.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Again, you agreed with me (and Thomas) that the existence of G-d cannot be disconfirmed. Has that changed?

I am not rewriting it all again. Read back through.

How is this different from saying that one should convict people of crimes with nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence or even made-up evidence?

You can call the studies of countless scientists working in many fields of endeavour over many decades only capable of 'making it up' or finding only circumstantial evidence. I do not. I trust that those people were searching for truth. I trust that the findings they presented were the truth, and peer reviewed to confirm they were the truth. It is theology that makes things up, not science.

It is you who makes arbitary decisions about what evidence matters. Here is another example:

I made the statement that New Age is big business, so what are you talking about?

Isn't Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" a best seller in the UK? (And don't you have a copy?)

Yes it was a best-seller, and I have little doubt it was theists that made it so. I did have one, terribly written very boring book.

The Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching have nothing to do with a monotheistic G-d concept. Likewise, the fact that there is a market for them has nothing to do with the cultural transmission of doctrines concerned with a traditional monotheistic G-d (the focus of your original question).

So why did you bring up new age religions?

New Age philosophy is not religion.

Perhaps not yet, as I already said, but it is still tantamount to one.

My point, friend Tao, is that you see "evidence" where you want to see it.

My point would be is that I answer your every question but you never listen to the answers.

tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Absolute bollocks. There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute. Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself. Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him and not an atheism run riot. A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power. It matters not whether that dogma is Islam or communism, the tenet of my point still holds the same.

I counter with League of the Militant Godless, to connect militant atheism to communism in the manner that Tao connected Catholicism to the Nazis.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Like I said there are more ways than one to approach proof. You still doggedly try to stick to proving or disproving God despite me now having said several times I do not care about that question.

Check your opening post for this thread and the subsequernt posts in which you specifically suggest that it is possible to disabuse people of their faith in the manner that a child is disabused of belief in Santa when he finds presents in the closet.

What I focus on, that which can be studied and the facts discerned, is the validity of belief in man himself.

But those things have nothing to do with the existence of G-d, which was the issue that you started out with for this thread. IMHO, you've been backpedaling for some time.

There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute.

Was Hitler's attack on Poland religiously motivated?

Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself.

Stalin's followers were not so self-centred. They were true believers in communism and were prepared to sacrifice everything for it.

Likewise with Mao, it was about absolute power for him ....

That isn't an ideology that is arguably a byproduct of an atheist worldview?

A core part of my argument is that it is the cultural acceptance of religion that allows dogma's or ideologies to gain too much power.

Are UK readers of Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching getting together to form a political party?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I counter with League of the Militant Godless, to connect militant atheism to communism in the manner that Tao connected Catholicism to the Nazis.

I stated this in regard to Stalin : "Stalin, the worst paranoid of that century, had no ideology except holding power entirely for himself." What you link to describes one of Stalins methods of watching and controlling in order to keep a stranglehold on any dissent. He saw religion as a method through which dissent could grow and did everything to counter that threat. Trying to say Stalin did what he did "in the name of Atheism" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Stalin may have technically been an Atheist but he did not do what he did in the name of Atheism.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Check your opening post for this thread and the subsequernt posts in which you specifically suggest that it is possible to disabuse people of their faith in the manner that a child is disabused of belief in Santa when he finds presents in the closet.

What anthropology, sociology, the history of religion, psychology and a raft of other scientific schools give us are the presents in the closet. You keep going on about Santa, I'm saying well it aint Christmas Day and so why the hell are the presents there.

But those things have nothing to do with the existence of G-d, which was the issue that you started out with for this thread. IMHO, you've been backpedaling for some time.

I'd say I have been talking to someone that is profoundly deaf.

Was Hitler's attack on Poland religiously motivated?

Yeah go on, nothing new there, try and divert.

Stalin's followers were not so self-centred. They were true believers in communism and were prepared to sacrifice everything for it.

Because they were culturally conditioned from a young age to accept untruths as true. By religions!!

That isn't an ideology that is arguably a byproduct of an atheist worldview?

Here you are defending monotheism and you have the gall to say that. Would be funny if it were not so sad.

Are UK readers of Celestine Prophecy or Tao te ching getting together to form a political party?

Another meaningless and irrelevant question.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What anthropology, sociology, the history of religion, psychology and a raft of other scientific schools give us are the presents in the closet.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean they have disproven G-d's existence.

Yeah go on, nothing new there, try and divert.

No diversion. Weren't you suggesting that Nazi Germany was religiously motivated or at least legitimatized by religion? If not, what did you mean when you said: "There has never been an atheist fought war in the course of human history. The Nazi's were Catholic, they attended Catholic services, got married and baptised in the Catholic church by Catholic priests who saw nothing wrong with giving the Nazi salute."

Because they were culturally conditioned from a young age to accept untruths as true. By religions!!

That is your theory. Maybe people are naturally gullible regardless of religious upbringing. You calt expect anyien to take your theory seriously unless you do the experiment that rules out competing explanations.

Here you are defending monotheism

I have not defended monotheism. I have merely questioned whether you have a case against it.

and you have the gall to say that.

It is not any more unsound that an attempt to disprove the existence of G-d by drawing an analogy to Santa Clause.