[youtube] akercocke interviewed by irish christians

[Vossyrus]

I will always support scientific views over religious ones. I'm not saying Science is always true, a lot of it is based on theory of course. However science is continuously moving forward, and progressing in the process - its the complete opposite of only having one stubborn view that will never change. The mentallity of a religious person is simply "everything is how it is, how it was and how it ever will be."

It's amazing how science has come along. You can go back to a crime scene 10 years later, find blood inside of a television and still find enough enough dna evidence to convict someone and solve a case (I've seen this done before). Not to mention, every other significant advancement via science that need not be explained. So why then, do religious people respect all those forms of science except for this one?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I was framing the debate with regards to religions vs non-believers, not deists.

Oh.

It's not the atheist's problem. The atheist is merely stating that the theist is wrong, not posing an alternative theory.

So why bother countering the theist if you don't have any alternative theory?

"Hey theist, you're wrong. There's no god."
"Really? So how did we all get here?"
"I dunno... but there's still no god."

Arguments over whether or not God is real are pretty dumb, but you guys have made a slightly interesting discussion.

Yeah, I think we've reached the limits of its interestingness, though.

 

[skeptik]

So why bother countering the theist if you don't have any alternative theory?

"Hey theist, you're wrong. There's no god."
"Really? So how did we all get here?"
"I dunno... but there's still no god."

Are you saying that there is no differentiation between discounting one theory and proposing another theory? The atheist is not saying "you're wrong, but I don't know what makes you wrong." The atheist says "you're wrong, and this is why, going by your own theory."

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Are you saying that there is no differentiation between discounting one theory and proposing another theory? The atheist is not saying "you're wrong, but I don't know what makes you wrong." The atheist says "you're wrong, and this is why, going by your own theory."

So what's the "this" in this case? I wasn't aware that the atheist had any smashing argument against a generic theist who simply believes that there was some dude who created shit.

I'm not saying that discounting one theory equals proposing another, but since you're still referring to an atheist attack on theism (as opposed to an agnostic attack), then I assume you're going to propose a theory in place of the theist one. Otherwise, there's no point in bothering to assert atheism.

 

[skeptik]

Are you fucking nuts? Civilization largely functions on the principle that there has been a creator. To suggest that there wasn't one is certainly a "point." Whether or not you propose an alternative theory is irrelevant. And you shouldn't, because we don't know enough to do so.

"This" has been well documented for centuries. Read a book. The myth of the necessity of a sentient creator has already been touched on. The discrepancies of different theories of an omniscient, omnipotent, etc. deity throughout history is another point to address. However, this is not The Philosopher forum, and I don't really have the motivation to regurgitate bullet points to you at the moment, so consider this my withdrawal and my request to go hunting for "this" on your own if you're truly interested.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Are you fucking nuts?

No, not really.

Civilization largely functions on the principle that there has been a creator. To suggest that there wasn't one is certainly a "point." Whether or not you propose an alternative theory is irrelevant. And you shouldn't, because we don't know enough to do so.

Yeah, my point was that if you're not proposing a theory then you're not an atheist. You're simply an agnostic/skeptic/unreligious/etc. You do actually understand what I've been arguing, don't you?

"This" has been well documented for centuries. Read a book. The myth of the necessity of a sentient creator has already been touched on. The discrepancies of different theories of an omniscient, omnipotent, etc. deity throughout history is another point to address. However, this is not The Philosopher forum, and I don't really have the motivation to regurgitate bullet points to you at the moment, so consider this my withdrawal and my request to go hunting for "this" on your own if you're truly interested.

I don't think we're actually debating with each other as much as misunderstanding each other. I really don't give a shit what kinds of arguments the atheist, or anyone else, may have against Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other such ridiculous heaps of myth. Anyone could cut down those faiths with their little finger if they wanted to. But at the heart of theism, you've still got an unfalsifiable theory - "there is a god" - which is no better or worse than saying "there isn't a god".

And that's why I'm not a theist or an atheist. End of story.

 

[skeptik]

Yeah, my point was that if you're not proposing a theory then you're not an atheist. You're simply an agnostic/skeptic/unreligious/etc. You do actually understand what I've been arguing, don't you?

Denying that there is a higher power is atheism, not proposing an alternative theory. I don't know where you got that from.

I don't think we're actually debating with each other as much as misunderstanding each other. I really don't give a shit what kinds of arguments the atheist, or anyone else, may have against Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other such ridiculous heaps of myth. Anyone could cut down those faiths with their little finger if they wanted to. But at the heart of theism, you've still got an unfalsifiable theory - "there is a god" - which is no better or worse than saying "there isn't a god".

And that's why I'm not a theist or an atheist. End of story.

The myth of the necessity of a sentient creator is attack on the deist as well, because the deist (or theist, whatever) essentially believes that there must have been an "intelligent designer" if you will, and the atheist calls bullshit on this supposed need, and then mentions the fact that this higher power would need a cause, and that this constant need for a cause of every thing results in an infinite regression. You can research more if you want.

I'm not a theist because I have no rational basis for believing that there is anything more to the world than what we see. I'm not egotistical enough to claim to know how the world came to be, but I'm disciplined enough to be able to claim that the theory of a higher power is unacceptable to man's rational principle. The claim "there is no god" does not have the same value base as the claim "there is a god." And that's the last thing I'm saying.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Read a book.

What's a book that deals with these issues(other than of course the bible)? I would extremely interested in reading it since I'm a point in my life where I've been thinking a lot about faith, the creation of the world around me, and what happens when I leave.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What's a book that deals with these issues(other than of course the bible)? I would extremely interested in reading it since I'm a point in my life where I've been thinking a lot about faith, the creation of the world around me, and what happens when I leave.

I've been meaning to read the book The Case for Faith for a while now, since I've heard that it contains a decent set of pro-Christian arguments. It probably won't do much for me at this point in my life, since I'm well acquainted with the logical fallacies that are all over Christianity, but I'm hoping it will at least provide a decent challenge.

I'm sure Cythraul could recommend a few good theology-oriented books, though they might not be too accessible. I'm really not very scholarly in my theological interests, and I rarely read books on such dry topics (though Wikipedia articles are always nice ). I just enjoy the debating aspect of it. I find debating to be the easiest and most fun way of learning about the arguments surrounding a topic; and the interactivity gets me to think much more carefully about things than I otherwise would if I were reading a book. Too bad Necuratul doesn't share my enthusiasm for debate.

 

[skeptik]

Most of my own reading has been through philosophy, to be honest, but from what I understand, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is supposed to be a decent entry.

 

[CAIRATH]

Most of my own reading has been through philosophy, to be honest, but from what I understand, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is supposed to be a decent entry.

I'm reading that at the moment. Interesting stuff.

 

[skeptik]

Would you consider it a good read for someone who has questions like DazedAndBrutal does? I haven't read it myself as of yet, so I don't want to fully support something that I can't be sure of.

 

[Blue_Jay]

Wow I'm surprised there's so many atheists on this board haha.

 

[CAIRATH]

Would you consider it a good read for someone who has questions like DazedAndBrutal does? I haven't read it myself as of yet, so I don't want to fully support something that I can't be sure of.

I'm only about 1/3 into the book so I can't really say yet. I think it is an interesting read so far either way. But it is worth noting that Richard Dawkins has an agenda just as much as some religious guy trying to convince you that God exists does. The book isn't written as a neutral, level-headed and open-ended perspective on religion where everyone gets a big hug in the end, but rather an all out verbal assault on religion in all its facets.

His target audience are doubters, people who already are atheists (like myself) and people with a distaste for organized religion (again like myself). If you belong into one of those categories and are interested in the subject I recommend reading it (and also watching the documentary called The Root of All Evil, which I have seen and is very interesting). If you're uptightly religious on the other hand you might as well not bother because you'll most likely just get angry and offended by what he has to say.

 

[Wires & Waves]

I'm pretty sure you're an agnostic. Agnostics are the ones who make no assumptions about the universe. Being agnostic means to not know if there's a god or not. If you declare your self and Atheist you are saying that you believe that the idea of god is an impossibility and that you are making whole heartedly the assumption that he is not real..

actually youre wrong, look up strong and weak atheism

 

[CF87]

I hate christians and liked how the band handled that.

 

[Valerie]

actually youre wrong, look up strong and weak atheism

I second this.

 

[Blue_Jay]

I hate christians and liked how the band handled that.

The band was given a chance to talk in the beggining and they hardly said anything. Then when they were wanting to talk the Christians woundn't let them, the christians were being horribly mean to the band members, annoying as heck. Although those two Akercocke band memebers could have atleast said more in the beggining like they never ment to offend anyone or that they came in the name of peace, something like that. Sure I hate their satanic lyrics, but I never read anything in their lyrics that says "screw christians".

Complete embarrassment for Christians like me.

 

[Mort Divine]

Complete embarrassment for Christians like me.

I'd say you guys are already an embarassment to yourselves.

 

[Blue_Jay]

I'd say you guys are already an embarassment to yourselves.

Not all christians are like that, I have met a lot of christians who aren't very biased toward religion nor do they act like the typical christian.