| Jerome92085 |
| Posted 07/02/12 at 09:52 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
I've heard a number of popular arguments in favor of atheism just wanted to hear everyone's opinion on a few matters, and more specifically where the holes lie:
Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
No one kills in the name of atheism (referring to 20th century mass murderers).
Evolution is unguided.
If we didn't exist before we were born why think we will exist after? |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 07/02/12 at 10:31 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
I don't know the details of the case with Hitler, but it would be an ad-hominem to say that Christianity is false because of this. Likewise, if Issac Newton was a Nazi, it wouldn't make his scientific theories false. It is also the case that many (if not most) theologians would affirm that one needs more than just a faith that assents to intellectual doctrines (such as Roman Catholic creeds), but also trust in God which would necessarily manifest itself in good, and not evil works. As Jesus said, "a tree is known by its fruit." For these reasons, Hitler is probably in hell rather than heaven despite if he was a Roman Catholic.
Quote: No one kills in the name of atheism (referring to 20th century mass murderers).
Idk how best to answer this. I am sure someone here has a response though.
Quote: Evolution is unguided.
Plantinga deals with this well in his recent book on science and religion. I can't recall how he worded his answer, but I think someone else here could give a good response.
Quote: If we didn't exist before we were born why think we will exist after?
Why think we wont? Other positive reasons to think we will would be theistic arguments or else the experience of God. |
| Loading... | |
| Chris9809 |
| Posted 07/02/12 at 10:39 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
1. Not sure if he was Roman Catholic, but even if he was, what would him being catholic have to do with his other views? Obviously he didn't adhere to a catholic view while ordering the deaths of millions of Jews.
2. If course you aren't going to see people kill in the name of Atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity/supernatural force of some sort. Now if you want to look for an atheist who killed because he saw fit to do so, check out Joseph Stalin.
3. Your point?
4. This could spark another debate on Dualism, however if you are referring to "We" in our physical bodies, then actually we did exist; We just went from one arrangement of bio-mass to a much bigger arrangement of bio-mass that has a name slapped on it for identification/taxation purposes.
And in case you're wondering, I'm a Theist.
 |
| Loading... | |
| Jerome92085 |
| Posted 07/02/12 at 11:46 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
| What about "nothing begins to exist."? |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 07/02/12 at 11:48 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
What about "nothing begins to exist."?
Ask them if they exist. If they say yes, since nothing begins to exist, they must have always existed. If so, ask them what they were doing when the dinosaurs were around. If they say no, ask them why you should spend your time talking to something that doesn't exist. |
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:56 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
I've heard a number of popular arguments in favor of atheism just wanted to hear everyone's opinion on a few matters, and more specifically where the holes lie:
Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
No one kills in the name of atheism (referring to 20th century mass murderers).
Evolution is unguided.
If we didn't exist before we were born why think we will exist after?
In regards to the first 2....i think Atheists use the first argument that religion doctrine actually causes mass murders, Sept 11. They use this as a reason to get rid of religion, because of how it causes these mass murders..
However, in regards to the second argument, imo, it is a double edged sword. The mass murders by Stalin and Pot (Atheists) clearlry shows that if someone has a lack of religious belief, they too can and will murder...
So its a zero sum game argument.
However, in terms of Christianity, i often ask Atheists where Jesus instructs people to kill or cause harm, and if people kill in the name of Christianity , how this connection is made?
So, Christianity as a cause of mass murders is as much of a connection of atheism causing mass murders are just as weak as each other
In terms of evolution, i will leave it up to others to answer, but in my opinion, the game of evolution looks "fixed", "rigged" to me...ie, there is a match fixer in all this.....Just too many coincidences for it to be random luck. That is just my opinion.
For the last one, just because we arent aware that we existed before birth, it doesnt mean we actually werent...
|
| Loading... | |
| Jerome92085 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 01:58 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by emailestthoumeQuote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
What about "nothing begins to exist."? Ask them if they exist. If they say yes, since nothing begins to exist, they must have always existed. If so, ask them what they were doing when the dinosaurs were around. If they say no, ask them why you should spend your time talking to something that doesn't exist. |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 02:00 AM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085Quote: Originally Posted by emailestthoumeQuote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
What about "nothing begins to exist."? Ask them if they exist. If they say yes, since nothing begins to exist, they must have always existed. If so, ask them what they were doing when the dinosaurs were around. If they say no, ask them why you should spend your time talking to something that doesn't exist. Okay and what if they say the matter that they're made out of was around but not them?
Then it would disprove the statement: nothing begins to exist. If there was a time when they did not exist, (though the matter that they were made out of does) and a time that they do exist (now), then they must have come into being. |
| Loading... | |
| Jerome92085 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 04:00 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
| What about dualism: do the neural correlates of functioning in the brain disprove dualism? For example, if area X is destroyed a person loses function X. |
| Loading... | |
| Jerome92085 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 04:01 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
| Or the proposition God is unfalsifiable? |
| Loading... | |
| hasbeen |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 04:13 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jerome92085
1. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
2. No one kills in the name of atheism (referring to 20th century mass murderers).
3. Evolution is unguided.
4. If we didn't exist before we were born why think we will exist after?
5. What about "nothing begins to exist."?
1. Correct he was, in fact most of Europe and certainly a lot of people in Germany followed Lutheranism at the time adding to the antisemitism.
2. Again correct and as Chris said of course you aren't going to see people kill in the name of Atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity/supernatural force of some sort. Now if you want to look for an atheist who killed because he saw fit to do so, check out Joseph Stalin.
3. Evolution is deterministic.
4. Yea why think so?
5. "Nothing begins to exist" is a scientific fact of matter/energy, things merely change form. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 09:04 AM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
Hitler was whatever he needed to be in order to sway the crowd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Quote: No one kills in the name of atheism (referring to 20th century mass murderers).
This is a "want your cake and eat it to" dilemma that Atheists often get themselves into. If you want to claim that acts done in order to bring about a religious majority are acts "done in the name of" those religious beliefs then you can also apply that to atheist atrocities such as Stalin, Mao's "Great leap forward", Pot Tuk, Lenin, Trotsky, or the French Revolution. There have been plenty of atrocities committed in the name of abolishing religion and inserting atheism as a "state belief".
Quote: Evolution is unguided.
Saying naturalistic evolution is unguided as proof against God is kind of like saying the claims by vegans prove meat doesn't need to be eaten. Ignoring the massive implausibility of random genetic drift increasing available information within a genome as opposed to causing it to become more chaotic, presupposing the non-existence of God in order to support the non-existence of God just doesn't work.
Quote: If we didn't exist before we were born why think we will exist after?
Because your lack of pre-existence doesn't speak against the continued existence of your soul after death. My car was once chunks of minerals in the ground, that doesn't go to show that after being smelted and pieced together in an automotive factory the car will not continue to function as a vehicle after it leaves the assembly line. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 09:11 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: 5. "Nothing begins to exist" is a scientific fact of matter/energy, things merely change form.
*facepalm*
Dude no...just...no...please don't try that line of reasoning. It's called Mereological Nihilism and it's the sign of a sophomoric understanding of philosophy. It also speaks against the very nature of metaphysics, and the most well attested cosmological model we have to date.
If nothing ever begins to exist, and everything is merely a rearrangement of matter, then nothing exists. You never began to exist, you're just a chunk of matter, so you don't exist. You are not a person, nor do you have a name, opinion, or ontological reality. Similarly on this view abstract things such as songs, stories, or idealisms don't exist at all. "Justice" could never be done because the idea of justice could never begin as its' not a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
This also speaks against science itself contrary to your rather bold claim. Matter is subject to entropy, and on your view if nothing begins to exist matter is required to be eternal in the past, which violates both the problem of entropy, and the problem of Hubble Radiation/General Relativity which shows the universe coming into existence from a single point in the finite past approximately 13.7 billion years ago. This was clearly predicted by the Friedmann Lemaitre model of Cosmolgy, the standard model.
In order to maintain this view you'd not only have to pre-suppose a steady state model of the universe, a model which speaks out against almost every discovery of physics, but you'd somehow also have to abandon the ontological reality of everything in the process.
In short...no dude just...no. |
| Loading... | |
| hasbeen |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 09:34 AM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777Quote: 5. "Nothing begins to exist" is a scientific fact of matter/energy, things merely change form. *facepalm* Dude no...just...no...please don't try that line of reasoning. It's called Mereological Nihilism and it's the sign of a sophomoric understanding of philosophy. It also speaks against the very nature of metaphysics, and the most well attested cosmological model we have to date.
I am not discussion a bit of your worthless sophomoric philosophical wordplay i am discussing a empirical fact of physics.
Quote: If nothing ever begins to exist, and everything is merely a rearrangement of matter, then nothing exists. You never began to exist, you're just a chunk of matter, so you don't exist. You are not a person, nor do you have a name, opinion, or ontological reality.
What is this nonsense?
Quote: Similarly on this view abstract things such as songs, stories, or idealisms don't exist at all. "Justice" could never be done because the idea of justice could never begin as its' not a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
They exist because we create or understand them and we do that via the matter and energy that our brains are made of creating them or the concepts.
Quote: This also speaks against science itself contrary to your rather bold claim. Matter is subject to entropy, and on your view if nothing begins to exist matter is required to be eternal in the past, which violates both the problem of entropy, and the problem of Hubble Radiation/General Relativity which shows the universe coming into existence from a single point in the finite past approximately 13.7 billion years ago. This was clearly predicted by the Friedmann Lemaitre model of Cosmolgy, the standard model.
1. I never said matter was eternal in the past that is a lie, but hey i have come to expect those from the christians on this site.
2. I clearly said things change form rather than begin to exist (a fact of physics) so it does not need to be matter infinitely in the past.
Quote: In order to maintain this view you'd not only have to pre-suppose a steady state model of the universe, a model which speaks out against almost every discovery of physics, but you'd somehow also have to abandon the ontological reality of everything in the process.
NO I DO NOT I ONLY NEED DO THAT IF I AGREE WITH YOUR IGNORANT AND OBVIOUS STRAWMAN AND I DO NOT.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 09:52 AM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Capslock is not, in fact, cruise control for cool. And again, fisking, it's a very discussion shattering style of posting. But let me break down what I think are your complaints with the problem of Mereological Nihilism to illuminate why using it as an exercise in doing away with causality tends to make everything break down.
You see your claim that "nothing begins to exist" is an objective ontological statement of metaphysics. That being that nothing that exists began to exist, it is merely a rearrangement of pre-existing matter. This is both a statement of philosophy and science known as Mereological Nihilism, or more or less the claim that there are no such things as compound constructs, everything is simply a combination of matter. The problem with this view on the side of metaphysics is that it tends to break reality.
For example: if nothing ever begins to exist, and is merely a rearrangement of matter, then the chair I'm sitting on right now never began to exist. I'm not sitting on a "chair" I'm sitting on plastic and fabric. But you see, plastic and fabric could never begin to exist as it's just a rearrangement of pre-existing matter, and so I'm not even sitting on plastic and fabric, I'm sitting on molecules. You see your statement is so broad that it does away with hunks of reality. Your actual claim is that nothing which exists and has a material cause began to exist without a material cause. All ontological beings which have a material cause were not generated from a cause which itself did not have a material cause.
The problem here, and I'm harkening back to you raging out about me saying you'd have to presuppose a steady stateish model which includes in it a past infinite amount of matter, is that by holding to this statement you logically must hold to matter being eternal. Now I know you were just flipping out over that above, but the reality is it's the truth. If everything is merely a rearrangement of matter, and matter itself never began to exist, that means that matter is eternal. You can't possibly have matter which never begins to exist, but is finite in the past. That's a complete logical absurdity. And so in order to claim that matter never began to exist you need to postulate a model of cosmology which is not only supported, but also deals with the problem given by Hubble Radiation and a past finite universe.
Now you don't need to rage out, Hasbeen, I'd suggest simply taking a look at the science of your statement as well as the metaphysical claims you're making and reestablish what it is you're supporting. Merely trying to assert a proposition without thinking of the consequence is a very narrow view way of dealing with arguments and evidence. If you're trying to appeal to Mereological Nihilism simply to do away with a single aspect of Chrsitian apologetics you're creating ad hoc responses without thinking of the large model of cosmology you would need to support in order for you to actually hold these rebuttals accountable. |
| Loading... | |
