An Open Letter to Atheists

[Wolf]

Paedo

Psychopath.

 

[Fishalt]

As predicted, this thread has changed nobody's mind and has only resulted in enmity.

 

[Fishalt]

What's annoying about you, when you're lying about me, is that you're fairly unaware of my thoughts on this subject.

Did you know that I had a fifteen round bout with my goof friend, Mrs. Hitler (@dropkickmejeebus) about Richard Dawkins being an agnostic?

Do you think that was a sensible and/or profitable investment of time?

 

[Fishalt]

Of course it was. Winning is always worth it

This is what I've been trying to get through to you, James. You spend your time trying to conquer others to feed or otherwise appease your ego, and this achieves nothing. Nothing will increase as a result of this process other than your pride and vanity. Or bitterness and hatred.

 

[Fishalt]

I've already told you that that's a lie.

Stop. Lying.

Is it though, James? Is it really?

What other motivation could you possibly have for endlessly engaging in these debates? Come now, be honest; none of this is coming from a place of virtue. I would level the same charge at Tiger and Plunkett FYI. It's all underwritten by hatred and the need to win, to humiliate. And what underwrites that is ego. The shadow.

Hatred will not cease by hatred at any time, people. This is a very, very old rule.

 

[scolairebocht]

Well this is going well...

 

[Fishalt]

Well this is going well...

Not to be an I told you so...

 

[dropkickmejeebus]

Because I can assure you that that's not what the 15-rounder with @dropkickmejeebus was about, nor have I ever tried to dissuade anyone from their faith

Is that a challenge to another 15 rounds?

 

[scolairebocht]

Anyway Fishalt you reckon Intelligent Design is the proof that could impress you? Did you get a chance to read from p.36 on in this book maybe: http://www.orwellianireland.com/proofs.pdf ?

 

[Fishalt]

Anyway Fishalt you reckon Intelligent Design is the proof that could impress you? Did you get a chance to read from p.36 on in this book maybe: http://www.orwellianireland.com/proofs.pdf ?

I don't believe in intelligent design. It's a pseudoscience.

Nobody who is interested in biology could believe in such a thing. This is a serious problem within the Christian community, IMO. Your side of the aisle has a very poor track record when it comes to ecology and the environment, and I suspect this is due to the fact that the Bible more or less instructs believers that they have dominion over the Earth and everything in it and can do to it or with whatever they please. It's been fairly disastrous for mother nature.

 

[scolairebocht]

Thats a new one, I didn't know it was the Church's fault that the Dodo died out or whatever. Still you can add it to the list, certainly the establishment in this country for I would say half a century has blamed the Church for everything, so...

 

[scolairebocht]

Fishalt: "The best evidence for God is that there is order in the universe. There's actually no reason for this to be the case at all."

I think you will find thats what the philosophers would call the Intelligent Design type argument? Although there would be other names for it I guess.

 

[Declan]

Today I was in caves, cut into sandstone, over 35 million years, by the ocean.
I could see layers proving the sea level washundreds of feet higher other land was hundreds of feet lower.

Either way, it was awe inspiring.

 

[scolairebocht]

Well I watched a couple of the videos you posted James and was going to reply to them but they just seemed very shallow. A few soundbites really that just weren't worth getting into.

Maybe if you roll up your sleeves and properly master the Aquinas 5 ways or something, then you would have all the philosophical background to take theists on, could that be a good plan?

 

[scolairebocht]

I did watch a number of your videos but cannot remember the titles I am afraid, certainly Dawkins, I think on the Pat Kenny show, was on one.

Ok so you reject the existence of God but not based, by your admission, on any great knowledge of your subject? Certainly not one you intend studying or that but one you certainly will broadcast to the world and challenge people on?

 

[Kangal]

Maybe if you roll up your sleeves and properly master the Aquinas 5 ways or something,

There's nothing to master.

There's this interesting witticism: Philosophy is the applied misuse of terms invented specifically for that purpose. (Though most philosophers agree the 5 Ways are not proper or rigorous proofs as far as they are concerned.)

Instead the 5 Ways are "intuitive assertions" which really require something more than just being asserted without any evidence, or they are based on fundamental misunderstandings.

For example, the unmoved mover is based on Aristotle who had a mistaken understanding of physics, not being aware of conservation of energy and assuming that energy got used up. Today we know that this is not the case.

Fundamentally though, stuff like the 5 Ways are a priori word games. They have no connection to the real world without corroboration.

That's the way logic works. You can be all cerebral and totally in-your-head and work out syllogisms that have to be true if the premises are true. Theres no doubt thats the appeal to some.

But that alone does not force the conclusion to be true in the real (a posteriori) world. The last step left out of all these arguments is "So let us know when you find this god. Then we can see whether your premises were true".

 

[scolairebocht]

If you read the aforementioned book you will see how much the great philosophers of the world tend to agree with those 5 ways. One of the ways does chime with the law of conservation of energy actually, as you will see if you study it.

 

[Kangal]

If you read the aforementioned book you will see how much the great philosophers of the world tend to agree with those 5 ways. One of the ways does chime with the law of conservation of energy actually, as you will see if you study it.

Again, the conclusions have to be true in the real (a posteriori) world. The last step left out of all these arguments is "So let us know when you find this god. Then we can see whether your premises were true". So yes, while they are academically interesting no doubt to many, they are not logical proofs. I could replace "God" with Allah or Brahma, and the the 5 ways still "work".

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I could replace "God" with Allah or Brahma, and the the 5 ways still "work".

Correct, which is why we have Revelation, which is the only way to find out who God is. You can easily determine via the 5 senses and common sense, the need for a Creator, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[Kangal]

Correct, which is why we have Revelation, which is the only way to find out who God is. You can easily determine via the 5 senses and common sense, the need for a Creator, but that's as far as it goes.

Let me rewrite this.

"Correct, which is why we have [insert key sacred document from your own religion here], which is the only way to find out who God is. You can easily determine via [insert unprovable assertions here], the need for a Creator, but that's as far as it goes."