Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

It strikes me as the sort of idea that grows a cult, because it encourages people to give up their reasoning, questioning, evaluating minds. A religion doesn't grow well when people are doing too much thinking and acting for themselves, because that would be "anarchy", don't you know. The believers need to shut off at least a portion of their minds in order to fit in with the group, and subservience encourages this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am disappointed in you Mark for veering so far off track.

Whether or not a particular idea is fertile ground for the formation of cults is simply irrelevant.

Not only that but your comments about believers shutting off portions of their minds in order to fit in does not cohere with the fact that many a brilliant men and women intellectually affirm the inherent depravity of mankind. The remedy for this erroneous view is a good dose of literature regarding the history of Christian Philosophical and theological thought on this topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not only that but your comments about believers shutting off portions of their minds in order to fit in does not cohere with the fact that many a brilliant men and women intellectually affirm the inherent depravity of mankind. The remedy for this erroneous view is a good dose of literature regarding the history of Christian Philosophical and theological thought on this topic.

In that case, doctor, heal thyself.

 

[anonymous person]

You haven't established that anyone here refuses to accept Christianity by virtue of pride, so you first.

I never said they did LOL!

Accepting a master-slave relationship, or a cult-leader cult-follower relationship, as an ethical duty. Yes, that is objectionable on philosophical grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I rest my case.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never said they did LOL!

No, not at all. So tell us about the pride that prevents you from accepting Islam.

I rest my case.

What case? You need a present a case first.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed a long one. So long in fact that the road never ends. One could present an infinite quantity of data for the establishment of some hypothesis or thesis and so long as the person wants to reject it all on the basis of some underlying objection to the thesis, an objection itself not subject to being removed by a mere appeal to argumentation and reason, then for that person they can simply throw out the oft-repeated atheist rejoinder: "Not enough evidence! Not enough evidence!"

Now that I say it in my mind, this phrase, this slogan "Not enough evidence!" reminds me of some spell or incantation someone might repeat over and over again in order to ward off some threat perceived as dreadful.

Perhaps instead of seeing the claim of "Not enough evidence!" in some sort of superstitious manner...you should consider it solely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

Once you do that, it goes right from a superstitious chant to the result of critical thinking and logic applied towards an empty claim.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I never said they did LOL!


I rest my case.

I don't see the connection between the quote from Mark and your "case".

You do realize that someone saying they have an ethical or philosophical objection to an idea isn't the same as saying that they have an emotional objection to the idea....don't you?

 

[anonymous person]

You've been doing this for 10 years? In those 10 years, how many have you actually converted by presenting them with apologetics? My guess is that the number is somewhere around 0. But you've conjured an excuse to continue with it anyway: they have not been convinced by your case because of their conceit, and not because your case is not as strong as you think it is.

I have converted zero.

God has given me the privilege of being a part of His work, which is to convict, convince, and convert. How many have been converted through what God has privileged me to be a part of? I have no idea whatsoever. I have had people personally tell me that I have helped them get closer to God sure. I do not make a habit of keeping track of the number.

Nor do I need an excuse to do anything I love doing.

Nor would I say anyone who walks away from any discussion I have with them walks away out of conceit.

It seems you read the word "pride" in my post a ways back and took me as saying that pride is what hinders YOU.

I never said that. If you will re-read what I wrote, I was careful to use the word "some". I never mentioned anyone by name because I do not know.

Heck, I even applied what I said to some "Christians". So do not think I am singling anyone out here and saying they are too proud to become a Christian.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Interestingly, Jeremy E Walker presented a similar line of questioning on another forum (1):

And if I were to prove to you that none of the above constitute an inconsistency/contradiction and that the Holy Bible was indeed the record of Gods dealings with man, what would you do with this knowledge?

Like @anonymous person, rather than acknowledge any weakness in his apologetics, he also concluded that pride was the main obstacle to acceptance of Christianity (2, 3, 4). It seems that both apologists, Jeremy E Walker and anonymous person, attend the same church (5). Jeremy also previously posted as Elioenai26 (6), another apologist, now banned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have converted zero.

God has given me the privilege of being a part of His work, which is to convict, convince, and convert. How many have been converted through what God has privileged me to be a part of? I have no idea whatsoever. I have had people personally tell me that I have helped them get closer to God sure. I do not make a habit of keeping track of the number.

Nor do I need an excuse to do anything I love doing.

Nor would I say anyone who walks away from any discussion I have with them walks away out of conceit.

It seems you read the word "pride" in my post a ways back and took me as saying that pride is what hinders YOU.

I never said that. If you will re-read what I wrote, I was careful to use the word "some". I never mentioned anyone by name because I do not know.

Heck, I even applied what I said to some "Christians". So do not think I am singling anyone out here and saying they are too proud to become a Christian.

In this paragraph...you never mentioned christians...

"Like an onion, we can one by one, peel back the layers of a person's reasons for not trusting in and committing themselves to Jesus Christ. On the surface, you have the reasons common to most i.e. lack of evidence. This reason is revealed to be but one of several layers which must be removed to get to the core or heart of one's reluctance to commitment to Christ. Some reveal that even if presented with this "evidence" they claim they would need to be able to commit to Christ, there is yet another reason why they cannot. That reason is usually something along the lines of some emotional resistance, i.e. the appeal to suffering or evil in the world. Once presented with a hypothetical wherein there existed no such things, some dig in deeper and have yet another reason for not committing to Christ. It is usually an appeal to their integrity or dignity. The deeper one digs, the more pronounced the pride becomes. Till at last, once presented with a hypothetical that would remove this last reason, we end with worship which allows no room for pride which by this time has been unmasked and exposed for what it is."

It quite obviously doesn't apply to christians...the first few sentences make that much clear.

Now, you did say this only applies to "some" atheists...not all. However, later you said that this "thesis" of yours has only been confirmed...never denied. So the implication there is that this statement applies, at least, to every atheist you've met/spoken to.

To top it off...you've still failed to mention how you can confirm this ridiculous statement without any magical mind reading powers....or how what Mark or anyone else here has said anything that confirms it.

This has been an enlightening discussion though...you've revealed a lot about yourself in it at least.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interestingly, Jeremy E Walker presented a similar line of questioning on another forum (1):

Like @anonymous person, rather than acknowledge any weakness in his apologetics, he also concluded that pride was the main obstacle to acceptance of Christianity (2, 3, 4). It seems that both apologists, Jeremy E Walker and anonymous person, attend the same church (5). Jeremy also previously posted as Elioenai26 (6), another apologist, now banned.

Lol wow...that's almost a word for word copy!

You should've been a historian! Have you ever read Carrier's explanation of Josephus? He basically does the same thing you did here...except he marries the Josephus passage to a passage in Luke I think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have converted zero.

Yeah, that's unsurprising. But I guess it's just because your target audience is so puffed up with conceit, right? It couldn't be that your apologetics fails to advance a strong enough case?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lol wow...that's almost a word for word copy!

You should've been a historian! Have you ever read Carrier's explanation of Josephus? He basically does the same thing you did here...except he marries the Josephus passage to a passage in Luke I think.

The parallels are hard to ignore, but watch as he ignores them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The parallels are hard to ignore, but watch as he ignores them.

You know...the only reason I had to suspect they're all the same guy is the general feel of his posts. The blatant disregard of any good point made against his arguments/beliefs....that sort of thing. It's hard to gauge though when so many people do it to you. I literally had a guy ignore me on an abortion thread barely an hour ago. I wonder what that's like...constantly being unable to answer someone who pokes a hole in the bubble of your personal views.

Anyway, funny story, there was a thread on objective morality way back when he was still Elio where I basically got him to say that morality was subjective by confronting him with a simple lose/lose scenario (a hypothetical no- win where both options were rather grievous sins in his eyes) and I remember posing a rather pointed question about the implications of subjective morality for his theological views...but typically, never got any answers. Then...that was it...he disappeared from the forum under that name.

Now I wish I had saved it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You know...the only reason I had to suspect they're all the same guy is the general feel of his posts. The blatant disregard of any good point made against his arguments/beliefs....that sort of thing. It's hard to gauge though when so many people do it to you. I literally had a guy ignore me on an abortion thread barely an hour ago. I wonder what that's like...constantly being unable to answer someone who pokes a hole in the bubble of your personal views.

Anyway, funny story, there was a thread on objective morality way back when he was still Elio where I basically got him to say that morality was subjective by confronting him with a simple lose/lose scenario (a hypothetical no- win where both options were rather grievous sins in his eyes) and I remember posing a rather pointed question about the implications of subjective morality for his theological views...but typically, never got any answers. Then...that was it...he disappeared from the forum under that name.

Now I wish I had saved it.

The new search function on this forum is incredibly useful. You could probably still find it if you enter the right keywords.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Secondly, I never argued that Mark's atheism stems from some resistance to religion, but to confessing Jesus as Lord.

Woah! Hold your horses there. My atheism does not stem from that, but from a lack of good reasons to think that a God exists. What you are talking about is a different issue altogether.

Atheism does not mean "disobedience to God". I can be a theist -- a believer in the existence of a God -- and yet wonder why I ought to be obedient to a God. That's a matter of ethics, not atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Woah! Hold your horses there. My atheism does not stem from that, but from a lack of good reasons to think that a God exists. What you are talking about is a different issue altogether.

Atheism does not mean "disobedience to God". I can be a theist -- a believer in the existence of a God -- and yet wonder why I ought to be obedient to a God. That's a matter of ethics, not atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

He took it down this road so that he could deliberately conflate the two and say, "Ah, so this is why you're an atheist."

 

[Ana the Ist]

He took it down this road so that he could deliberately conflate the two and say, "Ah, so this is why you're an atheist."

It's a pattern with him...

He conflates emotions with objective external causes (as evidence).

He conflates ethical and philosophical arguments with emotional ones.

He conflates logical and rational arguments with emotional ones.

That's why this looks so much like projection to me. I can only guess that deep down he understands the foundation of his beliefs is entirely emotional, and that foundation is a really shaky thing to build his worldview upon.

Since he understands this...he wants to believe everyone else's foundation is just as emotional/shaky. It provides a justification for not confronting the basis for his beliefs.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He took it down this road so that he could deliberately conflate the two and say, "Ah, so this is why you're an atheist."

I can see how every encounter of his with an atheist "confirms" what he already thinks about atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Woah! Hold your horses there. My atheism does not stem from that, but from a lack of good reasons to think that a God exists. What you are talking about is a different issue altogether.

Why are they different issues?

Atheism does not mean "disobedience to God".

I never argued the word atheism is synonymous with "disobedience to God".

What does the word "atheism" mean to you?

I can be a theist -- a believer in the existence of a God -- and yet wonder why I ought to be obedient to a God.

I agree that one can be a theist and at the same time wonder why they ought to be obedient to God. I never said they couldn't.

That's a matter of ethics, not atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

God, as the supreme Good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is Goodness itself, to be desired for its own sake. And so the fulfillment of human existence is to be found in relation to God. It’s because of who God is and his moral worth that he is worthy of worship.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris#ixzz3um89xtQm

 

[anonymous person]

Ad hominems, red herrings and the like have no place in substantive irenic discussions.

Please stay on topic.