Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry but I give up with you. No matter how many times or in how many different ways I say the same thing you just do not listen. You raise subjects and try and blow me out for giving answers, you switch the subject then blame me for doing so, you keep repeating the same old mantra that we agreed to on page 1 (I think) was not the right question. You aint going anywhere but in meaningless circles. So unless you have anything new to say I'd call this discussion at an end.


tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You aint going anywhere but in meaningless circles.

Tao, we are now over 400 posts into this thread. I think we are closer to getting some closure than before. I'd be interested in your response to these questions:

1) Would it be fair to say that there is no controversy with respect to the possibility of settling the most basic tenet of atheism - i.e., the non-existence of G-d? Before you answer, please consider the following questions...

2) Can we agree that atheists taking the position that G-d does not exist have no more scientific credibility than theists affirming their G-d concept?

3) Would it be fair to say that atheists' central position regarding the non-existence of G-d is dogmatic in the sense that it lacks a scientific foundation?

4) Finally, would you agree that atheists who arrogate scientific legitimacy with regard to their central position are actually misleading us in this respect?

A 'yes' or 'no' to the above questions will do, thank you.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Tao, we are now over 400 posts into this thread. I think we are closer to getting some closure than before. I'd be interested in your response to these questions:

1) Would it be fair to say that there is no controversy with respect to the possibility of settling the most basic tenet of atheism - i.e., the non-existence of G-d? Before you answer, please consider the following questions...

2) Can we agree that atheists taking the position that G-d does not exist have no more scientific credibility than theists affirming their G-d concept?

3) Would it be fair to say that atheists' central position regarding the non-existence of G-d is dogmatic in the sense that it lacks a scientific foundation?

4) Finally, would you agree that atheists who arrogate scientific legitimacy with regard to their central position are actually misleading us in this respect?

A 'yes' or 'no' to the above questions will do, thank you.

I have answered all of those questions several times already.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have answered all of those questions several times already.

Are you saying I'm being unreasonable to ask you to be a sport and answer them again in a simple yes/no form??....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Netti,

Here's a list of links to resources about atheism that will help you answer your questions: Atheism - Resources

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Here is an answer:

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God. Anthony Flew.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Here is an answer:

You are prepared to accept that as the answer even though the person that said it does not?

Flew has abandoned that 1984 position. He abandoned it in 2004:

MSNBC:
NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God

There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news - MSNBC.com


Here's a link to his book called "There is a God"
Amazon.com: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese: Books

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

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.

Cool chart, Seattlegal.

The only qualifier I would *have* to amend that with is the population figures as a percentage of total population. In other words, it is "easier" to have genocidal atrosities in the millions nowadays with the exponential population growth, but how would one interpret, oh, say, the disappearance of Neandertal in relation to a world population that was probably considerably less than a few million. Contrasted against any 20th century genocide in terms of percentage of population, the Neandertal genocide seems to me a pretty nasty body count, 100% dead.

I am not saying any of this to belittle any modern genocidal atrocity, but to remind that context also bears consideration if we are going to consider "worst." Considering that, such as the extinction of the San Salvadoran indians (Columbus) and the inhabitants of the Azores would seem to me to rank pretty high up there too. They were victimized 100%, no escape.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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.

Whoa, wait a minute.

After what you said about Hitler, you back peddle here?

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Either both are, or both are not, to be held to the same standard? Sounds like selective interpretation to me.

Trying to say Hitler did what he did "in the name of Catholism (or Christianity, your pick)" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Hitler may have technically been a Catholic but he did not do what he did in the name of Catholicism.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

I'm not Netti, but I would say that is pretty close to where I am at. And from what I gather about Tao's GAIA theory, it sounds pretty close to what I understand him to be saying, *too*.

I am open to correction though on this last part.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm not Netti, but I would say that is pretty close to where I am at. And from what I gather about Tao's GAIA theory, it sounds pretty close to what I understand him to be saying, *too*.

I am open to correction though on this last part.

Yeah, me too Juan.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.

*and*

There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.

~Niels Bohr

You never cease to amaze me, Seattlegal!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Either both are, or both are not, to be held to the same standard? Sounds like selective interpretation to me.

Trying to say Hitler did what he did "in the name of Catholism (or Christianity, your pick)" is patently untrue. So sorry but that holds no water. Hitler may have technically been a Catholic but he did not do what he did in the name of Catholicism.

The ideology invoked in connection with an action may be merely the cover story.

It troubles me that religions may have been given a bad name by people who didn't even believe. Arguably, if they did truly believe, they would have acted differently.

[Netti-Netti]

Flew said: "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins." Actually, karmic reactions can be separated from G-d Himself. They are generated by individual wrongdoing. It can be seen as an impersonal mechanism rather than as an expression of a vengeful deity: "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

Flew went on: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Yes, I suppose.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

It doesn't sound especially different from a fairly traditional G-d concept. Certainly the G-d of the Abrahamic religions was intelligent and purposeful.