Atheists are having it too easy.

[Gadjodilo]

I agree that there are plenty of large targets of nonsense in mainstream Xianity without having to bring in extremists like Robinson.

You're not answering my question. If what Robinson said has no basis in Christianity, then it can't be used to attack Christianity. In the same way that the excesses of atheists can't be used to attack atheism. It's either both or neither. Which is it?

Agreed. But the burden of evidence still lies on the side of the theists not the atheists. Atheism, like aunicornism, should be the default position, until the case for the contrary is proven.

Believe it or not, science has some examples of entities whose existence isn't questioned but yet, they have never been seen. Presumably, you'd take a dim view of this?

You have failed to answer my point which was that when these evils were committed they were not because of atheism (which is almost content free, apart from an assertion that god does not exist) but because of a teleological (do you understand this word?) ideology. A facet that religion shares with communist ideology.

If the teleological aspect of communism was responsible, then you'd see similar excesses in religion. But, you don't - or at least only rarely. So, that kind of undermines your point.

[Cato]

You're not answering my question. If what Robinson said has no basis in Christianity, then it can't be used to attack Christianity. In the same way that the excesses of atheists can't be used to attack atheism. It's either both or neither. Which is it?

If what any particular Xian, such as Robinson, has to say has no basis in Xianity, then what he/she said should not then become a basis to attack Xianity in general, although it could still form the basis of a criticism of organized religion.

Believe it or not, science has some examples of entities whose existence isn't questioned but yet, they have never been seen. Presumably, you'd take a dim view of this?

While such things have not been seen there is some evidence for their existence.

If the teleological aspect of communism was responsible, then you'd see similar excesses in religion. But, you don't - or at least only rarely. So, that kind of undermines your point.

It's all a question of degree, dear boy. And similar (if smaller) excesses have occurred in the name of religion.

[Gadjodilo]

A silly point. Having a position of my own to defend does nothing to increase or decrease the truth or otherwise of any criticism I have of any other point of view.

And you managed to miss my whole point on plurality. I'm not in the business of 'selling' my personal ethos to anyone else, it's my business. I will never try to convince anyone else of the value of stoicism. I leave that kind of arrogance to theists.

Oooh, I wasn't expecting such defensiveness! Having been so strident in earlier posts, you now clam up. Can it be that because the focus is now on you and on what you believe in - thereby giving others the chance to pick holes in your world view? Yeah, you're right. Stick to what you're best at - carping at other people.

[Garland Names the Planets]

You're not answering my question. If what Robinson said has no basis in Christianity, then it can't be used to attack Christianity. In the same way that the excesses of atheists can't be used to attack atheism. It's either both or neither. Which is it?

No you don't get it or don't wan't to get it. When you espouse a belief in a book and what it says you should do that is expressing a doctrine. Expressing disbelief in this is not the same thing

Believe it or not, science has some examples of entities whose existence isn't questioned but yet, they have never been seen. Presumably, you'd take a dim view of this?

Don't know about Cato but yes I would. Largely because you haven't presented any examples

If the teleological aspect of communism was responsible, then you'd see similar excesses in religion. But, you don't - or at least only rarely. So, that kind of undermines your point.

Except we're not debating Communism

[Kev408]

If you're referring to proving whether God does or does not exist, that's not the point of this thread. At all. Read the original post or if that's too long, have a look at post #9.

Nowhere did I suggest that whether God exists or not is the point of this thread - that's your inference. I commented that Cato's post was superb 'in it's entirety'. I went on to point out in parenthesis and as such as an aside that: 'I merely highlighted one paragraph to remind Gadjodilo that comparing the burdens of proof of theists and atheists is disingenuous in the extreme - another trait of organised man-made religions.'

What provoked me to to remind you of that disingenuousness was not only the point you made in number 9 post but also what you repeated in number 24 post as copied below:

1. Atheism says there is no god(s). Theisms say there is/are. The point is pretty much unprovable.

Comparing the burdens of proof is disingenuous in the extreme. Atheists need to prove nothing, theists do.

By the way, if the opening post could be considered too long for the likes of me to read, and if you could sum it up neatly in number 9 post, why didn't you just write number 9 post in the first place? Obfuscation is another form of disingenuousness or maybe you just like to preach.

[brigg]

There have been interesting arguments raised in this thread, by both "sides" of the debate.

A few years back, I studied morality for a semester in college. Although it was taught primarily from a Catholic perspective, one of the main themes was that morality has always been a universal human trait, and is definitely not dependent on theistic beliefs. SideysGhost is quite right.

Any society must have a basic social contract, else the society collapses. This is why things like murder and theft are frowned on pretty much everywhere...
All it is, is a simple societal contract to prevent complete anarchy.

Moreover, it was even suggested that humans have a deep down desire to do good, and use their free will, wherever possible, to selflessly help others. So, it is not true that all theists have a seriously negative view of the capabilities of humanity.
Its all little hazy now unfortunately, and I don't particularly want to have to go and find quotes from obscure theologians, to argue my point.

Finally, I caught Bill Maher on The Daily Show a while back making the excellent point that the "certainty of atheism mirrors the certainty of religion". Throughout this thread, and others like it, we have seen the extremes arguing with each other, with little or nothing in between.
I suspect that a lot of people in this part of the world would be more accurately described as being agnostic. Who knows, they might even be the silent majority.

[Half Nelson]

Atheists need to prove nothing, theists do.

Not quite. Atheists have nothing to prove, i.e. they have nothing;
theists know that proof is impossible - hence the need for faith.

If the existence of God was proven it would demolish most religions, not justify them.

[Cato]

Oooh, I wasn't expecting such defensiveness! Having been so strident in earlier posts, you now clam up. Can it be that because the focus is now on you and on what you believe in - thereby giving others the chance to pick holes in your world view? Yeah, you're right. Stick to what you're best at - carping at other people.

My friend, that is most unfair and up until now we were have a respectful dialogue. A pity.

Anyone who knows me here knows that I regularly stake out my point of view and openly declare my philosophy. I debate it with many different posters here and happily defend my point of view. On this tread I have put forward those views of mine that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Feel free to criticism them. I have held nothing back. My views about and personal commitment to Stoicism are not relevant to this thread. It's as simple as that.

[ibis]

You're not answering my question. If what Robinson said has no basis in Christianity, then it can't be used to attack Christianity. In the same way that the excesses of atheists can't be used to attack atheism. It's either both or neither. Which is it?

It's neither, obviously - both are a matter of personal choice/morality/disposition.

It would be slightly more relevant to attack Christianity for broader historical movements such as the Inquisition, but even there, the idea that heretics needed anything other than persuasion is a very specific idea which forms no part of basic Christian doctrine, and which would have been strongly rejected by the majority of early Christians.

The idea that most atheists are probably attacking when they attack people like Robertson, though, is the idea of Christianity having divine authority behind it - the idea which atheists specifically reject. If Robertson is sincere in his beliefs, then clearly the "word of God" or doctrines of Christianity are susceptible of such a wide latitude of interpretation that any given claim to correct interpretation (and thus authority) is statistically likely to be false - and as I said earlier, dismissing Robertson as "not really Christian" is a simple fallacy, since you're just as likely to be wrong about what true Christianity is as he is.

[Gadjodilo]

My friend, that is most unfair and up until now we were have a respectful dialogue. A pity.

Anyone who knows me here knows that I regularly stake out my point of view and openly declare my philosophy. I debate it with many different posters here and happily defend my point of view. On this tread I have put forward those views of mine that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Feel free to criticism them. I have held nothing back. My views about and personal commitment to Stoicism are not relevant to this thread. It's as simple as that.

Well, in that case, I apologise. But, if we could avoid calling each others' points as "silly" (for example), I think this debate would flow more smoothly. Your views on stoicism are not directly relevant to this thread but I asked the question because I was genuinely curious to see how/if they informed your atheism. It wasn't an attempt to catch you out.