Santa V God

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Tao_Equus, May 10, 2008.

  1. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    I counter with League of the Militant Godless, to connect militant atheism to communism in the manner that Tao connected Catholicism to the Nazis.
     
  2. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

    Was Hitler's attack on Poland religiously motivated?

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

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


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

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  4. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.


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


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


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


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



    Another meaningless and irrelevant question.

    tao
     
  5. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe so, but that doesn't mean they have disproven G-d's existence.

    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."

    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.

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

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

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  7. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have answered all of those questions several times already.
     
  9. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying I'm being unreasonable to ask you to be a sport and answer them again in a simple yes/no form??....
    [​IMG]
     
  10. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Netti,

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

    Chris
     
  11. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  12. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
    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




     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2008
  14. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    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.
     
  15. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is this the same God you're thinking of Netti?

    Chris
     
  16. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    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. ;)
     
  17. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, me too Juan.

    Chris
     
  18. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    You never cease to amaze me, Seattlegal!
     
  19. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.


     
  20. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.
     

Share This Page