"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[Kulindahr]

What can't happen in the criterion you've set out is consideration of a possibly better claim that there is no creator at all. I think that puts someone outside the realm of the rational. It's possible to reject that claim, but only if a person is willing to consider the possibility of accepting it. Fiddling around the edges as to who is best at describing a creator blithely presumed to exist is not a rational activity, it is a ritualistic charade of reason.

That's not a game I'm familiar with.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree...despite, Dawkins declaring that he is much more agnostic....than once upon a time...

You're agreeing... but your words disagree.

Dawkins did not declare he is "much more agnostic" -- he declared he is much more firmly an atheist, and far less agnostic.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you keep on saying we are militant, extremist, zealous ... etc.

<sigh>

Telly, one of these days you really ought to bother to learn to understand the English language....

 

[Kulindahr]

Well this gets to my charge of "tu quoque."

Atheists come along and point out the zealous and unquestioning characteristics of many people who would call themselves believers, and kallipolis has the option to refute this, if he can. Or he can go on a campaign using invention and hyperbole to paint atheists as dogmatists and sheep-like and in the thrall of some kind of egomaniacal cabal of elite atheist overlords on whose pronouncements we depend for the illusion of meaning in our lives. (Pay attention kallipolis, there are some good adjectives here.)

Again, his game is not to refute atheist concerns about the conclusions of theists reached with too little self-reflection, too little humility, or that will not bear scrutiny, but to create a fantasist's caricature of atheism and then proclaim "See!?! They do it too!"

If it were remotely true it would be a discredit to atheists everywhere, but I must point out it would do nothing to elevate theists above buffoonery either.

Ah -- that makes it more clear.

 

[zoltanspawn]

That's not a game I'm familiar with.

What evidence, argument or reason, do you see to support your belief in a creator?

 

[bort138]

A large number of things. One is that Islam is plainly a copy-cat religion. Another is that its founder was a murderer, terrorist, caravan robber, and child abuser.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not it is true. Jews could make the same claim that Christianity is a copy-cat religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

None of that has anything to do with whether or not it is true. Jews could make the same claim that Christianity is a copy-cat religion.

No Creator worthy of attention would pick a murderer, terrorist, caravan robber, and child abuser for his Prophet.

And Christianity plainly isn't a copy-cat -- it's an add-on.

 

[mightbe]

Though it's perhaps more accurate to say that Christianity is an add-on to Judaism which IS a copycat religion. Kind of. It took lots of little bits and pieces from all the previous and contemporary religions in the middle east and then invented the concept of monotheism.

 

[bankside]

No Creator worthy of attention would pick a murderer, terrorist, caravan robber, and child abuser for his Prophet.

And Christianity plainly isn't a copy-cat -- it's an add-on.

NONsense. You've said yourself that the same God who counselled and committed murder, terror and child abuse in the time of the old testament was simply introducing a more humane and more ethical moral order in stages, taking into account the capacity of the people to understand at their stage of development. In his infinite compassion, of course.

By that reasoning it is perfectly logical that the one true God would designate a divine Prophet of similar ilk if that's what the situation called for. Clearly those who follow Mohammed have it right.

Incidentally I am glad to see you acknowledge Christianity as an add-on to Judaism rather than an abnegation of it and a divine apology for it.

 

[bankside]

That's not a game I'm familiar with.

The game is here:

Most theists I know believe because of evidence. The "leap of faith" is not a blind one, it's just not well lit.

What would change my mind? Evidence of a better claimant to be the revelation from the Creator.

You suggest that evidence could shape which flavour of theism you hold to, but I don't see where you accept any scenario where you reject theism itself on the basis of considered evidence (or lack thereof).

 

[bankside]

Just because something is written in a book does not make it evidence or factual in any way. Why do you believe the bible to be from the creator but not the Koran?

Because genesis is a royal chronicle of course. QED. If you don't get it based on that, there's no explaining it to you.

I've shot myself in the foot as much in real life as online with my wry sense of humour and satyrical bent. While I don't think I could ever play poker, I could deliver a straight line like nobody's business.

All of which is to say, I thoroughly agree with bort on his point.

 

[bort138]

No Creator worthy of attention would pick a murderer, terrorist, caravan robber, and child abuser for his Prophet.

And Christianity plainly isn't a copy-cat -- it's an add-on.

Being worthy of attention and existing at all are two very different concepts and are not related. I find picking Muhammad to be consistent for the god of the bible based on his behavior in the Old Testament. I agree that Christianity is more of an add-on than a copy but why would god need an add-on in the first place? I thought god was perfect and omniscient.

 

[mightbe]

Being worthy of attention and existing at all are two very different concepts and are not related. I find picking Muhammad to be consistent for the god of the bible based on his behavior in the Old Testament. I agree that Christianity is more of an add-on than a copy but why would god need an add-on in the first place? I thought god was perfect and omniscient.

There's a very easy way out of that. Say God portrays himself as a powerful being to some forlorn proto-Jews. Out of fear, they agree to go along with it. Several thousand years of twisting his words later, God says "Enough". Then he sends a nice guy down as his son, to see if they'll buy it. Only a couple hundred years later, God says "Fuck this--they're not doing ANYTHING right!" and sends a tyrant to spread his word. Another thousand years later, and God's had it with his doings, and edits "take two". He then calls upon a polygamous creep from New York, just to see how it plays out. So far, not good.

Although this may say something about the longevity of benevolent societies, it is a completely reasonable progression. It'd be like he's already set up his great afterlife and all that, he's just working on communicating that to his followers. He's just sending around different editions of the same story, each time to grab a new audience.

He may be perfect and omniscient, but as he established free will (talk about a huge mistake), he needs to provide lots of options. Each doesn't necessarily invalidate any of the others, as each is targeted towards a different culture and mindset. I suppose this would make God the first politician?

Anyway, bankside put it better.

 

[bort138]

There's a very easy way out of that. Say God portrays himself as a powerful being to some forlorn proto-Jews. Out of fear, they agree to go along with it. Several thousand years of twisting his words later, God says "Enough". Then he sends a nice guy down as his son, to see if they'll buy it. Only a couple hundred years later, God says "Fuck this--they're not doing ANYTHING right!" and sends a tyrant to spread his word. Another thousand years later, and God's had it with his doings, and edits "take two". He then calls upon a polygamous creep from New York, just to see how it plays out. So far, not good.

Although this may say something about the longevity of benevolent societies, it is a completely reasonable progression. It'd be like he's already set up his great afterlife and all that, he's just working on communicating that to his followers. He's just sending around different editions of the same story, each time to grab a new audience.

He may be perfect and omniscient, but as he established free will (talk about a huge mistake), he needs to provide lots of options. Each doesn't necessarily invalidate any of the others, as each is targeted towards a different culture and mindset. I suppose this would make God the first politician?

Anyway, bankside put it better.

This is certainly a creative way to answer the question but would call into question the omniscient abilities included in most concepts of god. A being with infinite knowledge would not need to correct itself ever and would already know the consequences of giving humans free will.

 

[mightbe]

Oscar Wilde wrote: "I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability."

 

[kallipolis]

Oscar Wilde wrote: "I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability."

You may well speak for your self.........

 

[kallipolis]

You're agreeing... but your words disagree.

Dawkins did not declare he is "much more agnostic" -- he declared he is much more firmly an atheist, and far less agnostic.

Dawkins' words are open to interpretation...

Your interpretation is noted.....

 

[kallipolis]

Dawkins is no guru

Many of his faithful followers believe he is a Guru...

I know that Professor Dawkins does not dress in orange, and assume the Lotus position...not all gurus dress for the role...

 

[Telstra]

Many of his faithful followers believe he is a Guru...

I know that Professor Dawkins does not dress in orange, and assume the Lotus position...not all gurus dress for the role...

He is a university Professor for goodness sake.
No one accept him as a guru. ONLY you.

 

[bort138]

Dawkins' words are open to interpretation...

Your interpretation is noted.....

This is an incredibly dishonest and fallacious way to debate. I don't know how you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when when you openly admit that the actual positions people hold are not as important as you what you can interpret that position to be.