Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
If Atheism was just a lack of belief in God they wouldn't have shown up as even a blip in that survey.
|
And yet, that's all atheism is, by definition. You are just begging the question here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Also, there would be very few threads on religion on this site.
|
It does not follow. Lack of belief doesn't mean things aren't still important/interesting/meaningful/influential in society.
Lack of belief in Voldemort doesn't stop there from being lots of threads about Harry Potter on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
The reason for this is obvious. Atheists are hostile towards Christianity. You can deny it but, all the evidence points to this conclusion. It is the very reason atheists topped the survey.
|
I don't deny some atheists are hostile towards Christianity. So? Christians are hostile towards atheists as well. Liberals are hostile towards conservatives, conservatives towards liberals. Vegans to carnivores, breast feeding mothers towards bottle feeders, the list goes on and on forever and ever.
"I distrust atheists as much as rapists because they put an ad on a bus that says people can be good without god" or "I distrust atheists as much as rapists because they say the dependence on authority via religion does harm to society."
Damn dirty atheists!
(It's also amusing because while atheists speaking out against Christian
ity is apparently bad, dismissing Christians speaking out against atheism is fine because "love the sinner, hate the sin".)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
As I explained in my last point the "cost" or the "value" is relevant. The high value of the prize makes the search worthwhile.
This is what you said:
"The cost of not accepting a claim isn't relevant to the veracity of the claim, that's flawed reasoning."
I never claimed it was "relevant to the veracity of the claim". My claim was that seeking God was worth the effort because of the value of finding him or conversly the cost of not finding him.
|
The whole thing started in the context of having an open or closed mind. To me that talks about being able to change your mind or not... that's about the veracity of a claim. People don't change their minds because they think something is false.
Then you said "Of course the existance of Santa is a very narrow possibility to close your mind to. What is the cost?", and to me that "close your mind to" means being unwilling to change despite any new information, which again is about the veracity of the claim.
That's the way I read it, it being about the validity of the claim, not about the value of the result making the search more or less worthwhile.
In that view, I would disagree for a different reason. The worthiness of the search can only be evaluated if the value of the result is known or approximately know.
The value of a search for Santa is pretty easy to guess, a fun time, maybe a present, eggnog, meet elves...
The value of a search for god is completely unknown, since the value of the result is completely unknown. There's no way to arbitrarily determine the value of the result, it could be eternal life, it could be nothing. Just because I create a story that says you'll be in pain forever if you don't find the maguffin doesn't mean it's actually true.
That and this is getting suspiciously close to Pascal's wager.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Examples of willful Ignorance?
|
No, I've explained above how I read your statements, and in that view the paragraph didn't have any relevance. Given your original intent the paragraph does fit, and I don't need convincing that the payoff enters into the cost/benefit analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
You defend atheism in just about every thread these atheists start to attack Christianity. You don't have to say it. You might not even be conscience of it but, your behaviour testifies to it.
|
So? If I defend my cat that doesn't make me one.
As I've said many times before, on a scale of 1 to 10 my "atheism" varies depending on the definition of god.
Trying to fit things into labels ("you are an atheist, you are not") doesn't work with real people, where things are more complex and nuanced.
"You and your fellow atheists" just makes it easier to say things without having to consider and deal with the nuances.
I don't lump you in with Calvinists or Pelagianists or whatever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Then lots of atheists are playing with words.
|
No, they're using words appropriately. Atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. They describe two different things.
An atheist agnostic currently does not believe in god either things there isn't enough information to make a decision, or that there cannot be enough information to make a decision.
An atheist gnostic believes there is no god because he thinks he has enough information to make that decision. (and as I'm sure I've said to you before, that can vary depending on the definition of god).
The definitions exist and people use them to describe themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
It is that determination that causes atheists on this site to attack christianity regularly.
|
Again you presume to know the minds of people.. Just because that's the only explanation you can see doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
And this site isn't unique judging by the survey.
|
That's begging the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
An agnostic doesn't believe in any God. He/she might be seeking or they might be not be interested in knowing. They lack a determination.
|
Not really, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. There can be an atheist agnostic or a theist agnostic. A theist agnostic believes there is a god but also believes that they cannot prove that to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
More pointless crticism.
|
Not pointless, you spoke about putting words in other people's mouths in a negative fashion, but speak for atheists constantly, telling them what they believe, think, and why they do what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I don't know your complete past but, I do know what i've seen on here. You don't appear to be seeking much more than validation for your positions.
|
What makes you think that?
In a discussion I advocate for the positions that I think are correct, because I've weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion. If I have no opinion or insufficient info to form one, I'll read and listen and ask questions. If, in the process of discussion, someone supplies a good reason to change my mind or enough information to form an opinion, I'll do so.
What I don't do is say "tell me what positions are correct.", because that shortcuts the whole "seeking" part, accepting something someone says as true is deciding they're right BEFORE evaluating what they say.
Seeking isn't about finding out what people believe and accepting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I'm thinking specifically of your embracing modern theories which puts into doubt the origins of many of the books of the New Testament. These theories although possible lack real substance. I think they only exist because people like the shadow they cast on scriptures. I also, think if you looked critically at them you would have to reject them or at least not let them effect what you believe about the Bible.
|
I disagree, if that were the case then there wouldn't be believers in textual criticism and such; a believer isn't going to question a passage's validity because of the shadow it casts on scriptures, they do it because they're trying to get closer to the original text.
I have looked at them critically, I spent a lot of time doing so. It was when I looked at it critically I changed my views and I had to reject the ideas of inerrancy as lacking substance.
Though my disbelief in the God of the Bible doesn't come only from how the scriptures came to be, that was more just a catalyst... probably the majority of Christians worldwide reject inerrancy to one degree or another but still are believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
This is important because faith cometh by, hearing and hearing by the word of God. Today your ears are closed to scriptures because of your belief in those theories.
|
It happened the other way though, I started out with a "back to my roots" approach, starting with scripture and starting with an honest prayer for God to guide my studies and conclusions; I wanted to form my beliefs based only on scripture and not based on things held to be true just because one church or another held it to be true, or just because one man preached the idea.
When I did that, when I read what was written rather than what a preacher had composed by pulling scriptures from different places and books and mashing them together, that's when I began to get far more questions than answers.
