Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anunnaki · 01-09-2002, 10:50 AM

Quote:

1) Atheism is not thrilling.
2) Truth is thrilling.
3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth.

I have no intention on getting into this little debate,but I have to put my two cents in here to say that the above conclusion from Albert has to be one of the more ridiculous things I`ve seen on these forums. And yes,this includes the nonsense from the drive by trolls.

LianaLi · 01-09-2002, 11:19 AM

Anunnaki- <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Albert-

Quote:

Originally posted by:Albert

Yes, this means the thrill standard results in their "high tendency to contradict each other." That's why we have a brain, to sort it all out.

I’m going to repeat myself here, with added emphasis, because the point was missed completely. How do you differentiate between deities that have a body of mythology to support them? How do you explain other religions, and validate your own, when it is quite clear that the “thrill standard” provides equal validation for all religions?

I’ll quote myself for examples.

Quote:

You’re dodging the bullet here. How do you differentiate between “thrills?” If I follow your premise correctly, I’m thrilled by reading a myth, because I’m full of the character that the myth is about. You’re obviously operating on the basis of the xian myth. I’m not. I get thrills reading Greek mythology, does this mean I’m full of Zeus? I like reading Irish myths as well. Does this mean I’m full of the Sidhe? I also get a “thrill” reading evolutionary texts, and genetics. Does this mean I’m an atheist, because those texts go counter to young earth theories?

The problem with being thrilled about things already within us, is that it does not differentiate between thrills. To use “thrills” as a standard, one must assume ALL things which thrill contain some sort of truth. Problem is, these multiple versions of truth, as accepted on that thrill standard, have a high tendency to contradict eachother. How do you explain that, unless being thrilled by something inherent within a human being is not a viable standard?

Quote:

Originally posted by:Albert

The fact that there are no atheistic myths (unless evolution qualifies) validates your conclusion and supports my point:
1) Atheism is not thrilling.
2) Truth is thrilling.
3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth.

From your premise, that truth is thrilling, I assert that Atheism, when based on evolution, is true. Why?

Let’s start with an earlier assertion:

Quote:

From our resident, traditional catholic:

That is to say, God is in us so we are thrilled by myths regarding God around us. Myths man has been thrilled enough by to pass down from the beginning of recorded history about god around us speak of us being full of God

Atheism, according to evolution, follows this nicely, because we all contain the current results of evolution of life on this planet. The human species continues to exist because of natural selection, and are a result of thousands and millions of years of natural selection.

Next requirement: We are thrilled by myths regarding the truth. I’m sure you’ll pardon my substitution there. Well, hey, we’re all thrilled reading about evolution! Viola! Proof that atheism is real.

If I followed your assertions correctly, I just proved atheism is real. Hal-le-lu-iah.

-Liana

99Percent · 01-09-2002, 11:33 AM

What so thrilling about knowing all the answers?

In atheism you are free to explore and discover. Believing in God you are tied to all the (false) explanations offered.

theophilus · 01-09-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
<strong>No, no, I'm afraid that will not do, theophilus. The bible is an assembly of books, and in the case of the New Testament the canon was decided by the vote of a council. Different traditions have a different canon. Jews do not accept the New Testament as canonical. The Catholic bible contains books such as Jubilees. The Eastern Orthodox church has a larger canon still. While Jude is in the Protestant canon, it quotes "prophecy" from the noncanonical book of Enoch.

So please explain why a particular book - the Book of Ezra, say - is canonical, while the Temple Scroll from Qumran cave XI is not.</strong>

Albert has chastized me for bring the Bible into this discussion (although he seems to be having troubles of his own). I don't acknowledge his complaint. The Bible is my authority; my question to atheists has always bee "what's yours."
As to the cannonicity of scripture, that's a theological discussion - as a Christian, I can answer it. As an atheist, you can't even ask the question.

I see you're still ducking my earlier question. Don't think others haven't noticed also.

99Percent · 01-09-2002, 01:39 PM

Theophilus: As an atheist, you can't even ask the question.

In case you have missed the point, he is asking it in order to point out the ridiculousness of the term "cannonical", of which you fail to counter. As atheists we don't even care.

I see you're still ducking my earlier question. Don't think others haven't noticed also

Sorry, but the one who is evading questions is you!

Apikorus · 01-09-2002, 01:49 PM

More clumsy footwork from theophilus. Rather than addressing the question, he now flatly states that atheists simply have no right to question the canonization process. This is nonsense.

Theophilus, will you please explain why the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while the Temple Scroll and the Book of Enoch are not? No more dodging!

Incidentally, are you ever going to furnish your "proof" that your thoughts are not controlled by an extraterrestrial rhinocerous? You made a grandiose claim at one point but subsequently you refused to back it up. Remember?

Now, I would be happy to address your question. Er...what is it? You wanted to know how I would assess the veracity of a claimed "miracle", eh? Well, of course I would subject it to scientific scrutiny. If it were claimed that remote, secret prayer could cure cancer or heart disease, I would subject it to rigorous epidemiological study. In fact, such studies have been done, with no dramatic results. (Claims of rather pathetically modest effects have been skewered by various critics.) If it were claimed that prayer could suspend the laws of gravity, I could easily devise a test.

Claims of ancient miracles, such as Jesus' alleged resurrection, miracles attributed to Asclepius, etc. are more difficult to assess, since they are not ongoing affairs. It is, of course, rather convenient for believers of various stripes that these alleged miracles occurred at a time when meticulous, quasi-permanent documentation was not available. But fear not! Were Jesus to return (I am always hearing that the blessed event is imminent!) and he were examined by competent researchers (say a panel of the NAS) and found able to walk on water, raise the dead, etc., I would very likely be forced to reassess my beliefs.

In addition, as many have noted, even singular events from the past leave a material record. Thus, had the radiometric dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed a first century date, that would have been a supportive datum. However, as is well-known, three competent radiometric dating teams have established that the shroud is of medieval provenance (1260 CE - 1390 CE, with 95% confidence, according to one study).

Foxhole Atheist · 01-09-2002, 02:25 PM

“The Bible is my authority; my question to atheists has always bee "what's yours."”

Answer: the entire natural world/universe.

Apikorus · 01-09-2002, 02:27 PM

Reason.

David Gould · 01-09-2002, 02:37 PM

Why do I need an 'authority'?

Albert Cipriani · 01-09-2002, 04:01 PM

Dear Anunnaki,
So you think my following syllogism is silly?:
1) Atheism is not thrilling.
2) Truth is thrilling.
3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth.

Then why, pray tell, isn't the one it's derived from silly too?:
1) The greatest story ever told sounds suspiciously similar to a lot of also-rans.
2) The also-rans were myths.
3) Ergo the greatest story ever told is a myth.

Such double standards you guys have. It's enough to make me think you have no standards at all. Alas, it's not enough to make you think period. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2002, 11:33 AM	#83
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	What so thrilling about knowing all the answers? In atheism you are free to explore and discover. Believing in God you are tied to all the (false) explanations offered.

01-09-2002, 01:39 PM	#85
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Theophilus: As an atheist, you can't even ask the question. In case you have missed the point, he is asking it in order to point out the ridiculousness of the term "cannonical", of which you fail to counter. As atheists we don't even care. I see you're still ducking my earlier question. Don't think others haven't noticed also Sorry, but the one who is evading questions is you!

01-09-2002, 01:49 PM	#86
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	More clumsy footwork from theophilus. Rather than addressing the question, he now flatly states that atheists simply have no right to question the canonization process. This is nonsense. Theophilus, will you please explain why the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while the Temple Scroll and the Book of Enoch are not? No more dodging! Incidentally, are you ever going to furnish your "proof" that your thoughts are not controlled by an extraterrestrial rhinocerous? You made a grandiose claim at one point but subsequently you refused to back it up. Remember? Now, I would be happy to address your question. Er...what is it? You wanted to know how I would assess the veracity of a claimed "miracle", eh? Well, of course I would subject it to scientific scrutiny. If it were claimed that remote, secret prayer could cure cancer or heart disease, I would subject it to rigorous epidemiological study. In fact, such studies have been done, with no dramatic results. (Claims of rather pathetically modest effects have been skewered by various critics.) If it were claimed that prayer could suspend the laws of gravity, I could easily devise a test. Claims of ancient miracles, such as Jesus' alleged resurrection, miracles attributed to Asclepius, etc. are more difficult to assess, since they are not ongoing affairs. It is, of course, rather convenient for believers of various stripes that these alleged miracles occurred at a time when meticulous, quasi-permanent documentation was not available. But fear not! Were Jesus to return (I am always hearing that the blessed event is imminent!) and he were examined by competent researchers (say a panel of the NAS) and found able to walk on water, raise the dead, etc., I would very likely be forced to reassess my beliefs. In addition, as many have noted, even singular events from the past leave a material record. Thus, had the radiometric dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed a first century date, that would have been a supportive datum. However, as is well-known, three competent radiometric dating teams have established that the shroud is of medieval provenance (1260 CE - 1390 CE, with 95% confidence, according to one study).

01-09-2002, 02:25 PM	#87
Foxhole Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Batavia, Ohio USA Posts: 180	“The Bible is my authority; my question to atheists has always bee "what's yours."” Answer: the entire natural world/universe.

01-09-2002, 02:27 PM	#88
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Reason.

01-09-2002, 02:37 PM	#89
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Why do I need an 'authority'?

01-09-2002, 04:01 PM	#90
Albert Cipriani Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 3,018	Dear Anunnaki, So you think my following syllogism is silly?: 1) Atheism is not thrilling. 2) Truth is thrilling. 3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth. Then why, pray tell, isn't the one it's derived from silly too?: 1) The greatest story ever told sounds suspiciously similar to a lot of also-rans. 2) The also-rans were myths. 3) Ergo the greatest story ever told is a myth. Such double standards you guys have. It's enough to make me think you have no standards at all. Alas, it's not enough to make you think period. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.