• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The dreaded "A" word

mijopaalmc said:
If you say "I don't believe in God" and nothing else, you have merely asserted that you don't believe.

Please learn the formal difference between a proposition (assertion) and a deduction (arguments).
Click to expand...

I did not make any kind of an argument in my post

"I do not believe in God" is a statement of belief

"God does not exist" is a statement of opinion

"God does not exist BECAUSE (insert evidence here) is an argument


YOU learn the difference between a proposition (assertion) and a deduction (argument) because you obviously don't know.
 
You can argue forever about what this or that label means, but don't expect someone to hold your hand up and declare "..and the winner is.."
The bottom line is that some of us believe in some kind of God and some of us do not. Some of us say that whatever you want to believe is O.K. by me as long as you keep it to yourself.
Some of us say "How can you believe such nonsense", and others reply with "God will get you for that."
...until death do us part.
 
smartcooky said:
I did not make any kind of an argument in my post

"I do not believe in God" is a statement of belief

"God does not exist" is a statement of opinion

"God does not exist BECAUSE (insert evidence here) is an argument


YOU learn the difference between a proposition (assertion) and a deduction (argument) because you obviously don't know.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Funny how we never hear anything from the god supporters which could provide the corollary of the highlighted sentence. "God exists because (evidence)". I guess they know that this argument would fail because of the quality of any evidence they might seek to put forward, so they indulge in semantic discussions instead.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Well said.

Funny how we never hear anything from the god supporters which could provide the corollary of the highlighted sentence. "God exists because (evidence)". I guess they know that this argument would fail because of the quality of any evidence they might seek to put forward, so they indulge in semantic discussions instead.
Click to expand...

Not only that. Its because their position is, always has been and always will be "God exists because (I have faith and faith is all I need because the bible tells me that is all I need as evidence)

Even worse, they think that this circular reasoning ought to be enough evidence for the non-believer too, and if its not good enough, well, we're all going to be eternally damned to burn in the fires of hell anyway, so why bother.
 
MikeG said:
Well said.

Funny how we never hear anything from the god supporters which could provide the corollary of the highlighted sentence. "God exists because (evidence)". I guess they know that this argument would fail because of the quality of any evidence they might seek to put forward, so they indulge in semantic discussions instead.
Click to expand...

Protip:
That's the cue for some of them to say you are ignorant about sophisticated theology. If you knew these theologies, you would not say such a thing. You will probably have problems trying to actually get them to accurately define and discuss them. Its... Sophisticated, you know. It would take a long time to study and understand them.not to mention that since you don't want to believe in god, its pointless. You must take their words for granted.

The same cue will be used by others to say thats because you have not experienced god, you never had a mystical experience. Its personal and you must open yourself to god if you want it to happen. Since you don't want to believe, its pointless. You must take their words for granted.

So, better join Scientology, 'cause its faster. You pay and get the seekrit knowledge about Xenu plus that thingie with the VU display that show your evil thoughts.
 
Correa Neto said:
Protip:
That's the cue for some of them to say you are ignorant about sophisticated theology. If you knew these theologies, you would not say such a thing. You will probably have problems trying to actually get them to accurately define and discuss them. Its... Sophisticated, you know. It would take a long time to study and understand them.not to mention that since you don't want to believe in god, its pointless. You must take their words for granted......
Click to expand...

I see. So how would this counter-argument play with them?:

First things first. Theology is the study (-ology) of god/s (theo-). I'll happily study god when they can provide evidence of its existence.

Mike
 
Well... No free lunch, sorry.

I stumbled in this very same obstacle, not once. The most recent ocasions were within the "sophisticated theology" threads. Some theists' arguments were that atheists, more especifically those disgusting noisy "New Atheists", were supposed to be attacking god using old tired arguments which were nothing but shallow, antiquated theologic discussions. These folks were, they said, either ignorant of or refused to discuss the new sophisticated theologies. If they knew it, they would not be so sure about god's inexistence. The problem is, the when asked about those theologies, the answers were usually not clears and sometimes they reffered to theologies built to explain a given issue with an Abrahamic god concept. And every single one of these, started with the premisse that version of god is real and had this or that property. I think, as you seem to think, that before getting entangled within this or that theology, its basic premisse -god exists- must be shown to be true (or a good chance of being so). Some theists will then say its a personal question, it requires a personal experience...

This put, theology is the study of god(s), but we don't actually need to believe in god(s) to study it(them). A Christian theologist may study Muslim or Maya theology, for example. As an atheist (oh, dreaded word!) I can study theology too, but it'll be better described as mythology, I believe. Now, why should I study it? I may be interested on its role within cultures, for example. But that would be a position based on reason, logic and belief quite often has loose ties -if any- with logic. Not to mention theists will not like to see their gods reduced to a myth. Its OK for anyone else's god to be left starving for faithfull followers in the dust of History, being the false gods they are. But my god? Oh no, its the true one, I KNOW it.
 
Correa Neto said:
.......Its OK for anyone else's god to be left starving for faithfull followers in the dust of History, being the false gods they are. But my god? Oh no, its the true one, I KNOW it.
Click to expand...

I know it because my parents told me so. Obviously.

Mike
 
Oh, not necessarily. It is in the Bible. May have been something a priest or pastor said. May or may not have been coupled with some experience, some feeling, mystical revelation...

But no, its not cultural inheritance...
 
Correa Neto said:
Oh, not necessarily. It is in the Bible. May have been something a priest or pastor said. May or may not have been coupled with some experience, some feeling, mystical revelation...

But no, its not cultural inheritance...
Click to expand...

No, obviously. I mean, otherwise there would be a strong correlation between the religion of your parents and the one you chose using your own free will and judgement, wouldn't there?
 
Totally, totally off-topic, but I have to say: that's a cool Type 1 you got there, Slowvehicle.
We now return you to this interesting thread.
 
MikeG said:
No, obviously. I mean, otherwise there would be a strong correlation between the religion of your parents and the one you chose using your own free will and judgement, wouldn't there?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

People change religions during their lives, don't them?
Some, for example, start Catholic and then convert to a Neopentecostal cult ruled by a tele evangelist, or even became Muslims, oh horror of the horrors! The fact that all those are Abrahamic religions whose dogmas are constantly being hammered at their heads is not an issue...

Not to mention those atheists completely lured away from gods' light by Satan's mischievous treatchery.

Me, I'll keep worshipping the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for She Is and Contains The True Path to Wisdom and Oneness with the Universe.
 
TimCallahan said:
A number of years ago, a bit after I had written Secret Origins of the Bible, a Swedish gentlemen wrote me, having read my book. He said it reminded him of letters from a far-off war, since religion is a non-issue in Sweden.

I'm interested in why Iceland would be so into superstition and woo. Do you have any ideas?
Click to expand...

Let me question your statement. Is Iceland "into" woo? I've only spent a couple of months there, but I saw no glaring evidence of this. I do think Icelanders are rather proud of their culture, as small communities often are- and a big part of that is trolls, Odin etc.
I recall a bus driver, a schoolteacher outside the summer months, who was most insistent that all his passengers should say "Good Morning" to the Trolls- some lava pinnacles on the road to Lakagigar. He claimed this would ensure the river would be low enough to get the bus across. Now one could take this at face value as evidence of superstition, but to me it was just a clever guy, getting a bunch of strangers involved in the landscape they were passing, while keeping himself amused in a fairly dull job.

Iceland became Christianised in 1000AD or thereabouts. After 30 odd years of missionary attempts bore little fruit, the king of Norway imposed trade sanctions on Iceland, whereupon the Icelandic parliament appointed an arbitrator, Thorgeir Thorkelson, to decide whether the island should become Christian or not. As a priest of the old religion, thorgeir might have been expected to side that way, but in fact he could read the writing on the wall quite clearly. Icelanders are pragmatists. It's not a place for existentialist philosophy- you need to get the crops in, catch fish and get stuff done.
Thorgeir decided to Christianise and basically the entire country accepted his decision, because the cost of not doing so was going to be high.

If they could dump paganism for solid reasons of politics 1000 years ago, can they really be so superstitious now?

The Odadahraun can be a damn spooky place when the haar rolls in from the sea. Being polite to the Trolls can't hurt. You never know...
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Let me question your statement. Is Iceland "into" woo? I've only spent a couple of months there, but I saw no glaring evidence of this. I do think Icelanders are rather proud of their culture, as small communities often are- and a big part of that is trolls, Odin etc.
I recall a bus driver, a schoolteacher outside the summer months, who was most insistent that all his passengers should say "Good Morning" to the Trolls- some lava pinnacles on the road to Lakagigar. He claimed this would ensure the river would be low enough to get the bus across. Now one could take this at face value as evidence of superstition, but to me it was just a clever guy, getting a bunch of strangers involved in the landscape they were passing, while keeping himself amused in a fairly dull job.

Iceland became Christianised in 1000AD or thereabouts. After 30 odd years of missionary attempts bore little fruit, the king of Norway imposed trade sanctions on Iceland, whereupon the Icelandic parliament appointed an arbitrator, Thorgeir Thorkelson, to decide whether the island should become Christian or not. As a priest of the old religion, thorgeir might have been expected to side that way, but in fact he could read the writing on the wall quite clearly. Icelanders are pragmatists. It's not a place for existentialist philosophy- you need to get the crops in, catch fish and get stuff done.
Thorgeir decided to Christianise and basically the entire country accepted his decision, because the cost of not doing so was going to be high.

If they could dump paganism for solid reasons of politics 1000 years ago, can they really be so superstitious now?

The Odadahraun can be a damn spooky place when the haar rolls in from the sea. Being polite to the Trolls can't hurt. You never know...
Click to expand...

Actually, I was responding to Humes fork. In his post #6, back on page 1 of this thread, he asserted that that Iceland while not particularly religious has a population that is very superstitious an wooish. I was asking him why he thought this might be so.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Let me question your statement. Is Iceland "into" woo? I've only spent a couple of months there, but I saw no glaring evidence of this. I do think Icelanders are rather proud of their culture, as small communities often are- and a big part of that is trolls, Odin etc.
Click to expand...

A couple I know went on holiday there, and said that there was a strong sense of folklore; also that the roads often have small diversions which, they were told by a guide, were around rocks where the 'hidden people' (elves) were reputed to live, and which should not be disturbed. Whether this was true, or there was some more technical reason, they clearly like the idea.
 
Tradition, culture. Whats wrong about keepting it? Its not like they are dumping people inside the volcanos or shoving prejudice against minorities (or majorities!) based on some religious dogma.

I think the Catholic doctrine contains lots of problematic dogmas which have the potential to give rise to prejudice, conflict, violence. I must say, however, that I do like the sounds of churches' bells and masses at our historic cities in the afternoons (not so much in the mornings, especially if I am with a hangover). It fits the environment, gives a some type of sense of tradition, continuity even tranquility. Oh, it also helps to attract tourists and their money. Its the sort of thing I would miss if religion suddenly disappeared from the world.

So, why not say hello to trolls and elves?
 
Last edited:
I have to get this little anecdote in. We have life long friends, originaly Episcopalian, who got sucked up into the whole Fundy movement.
When the wild haired troll doll fad was in full swing, their kids were not allowed to have them, and we were warned about how evil they were.
We tried to picture some Chinese guy at the factory whose job it was to insert the little "evil" boxes.
 
dlorde said:
A couple I know went on holiday there, and said that there was a strong sense of folklore; also that the roads often have small diversions which, they were told by a guide, were around rocks where the 'hidden people' (elves) were reputed to live, and which should not be disturbed. Whether this was true, or there was some more technical reason, they clearly like the idea.
Click to expand...

There's definitely a strong sense of history- which includes the history of Viking culture and literature. That literature- the sagas- are firmly tied to details of the landscape which are recognisable today. The landscape of pre-Christian times is still there, mostly unchanged, today. I've never been in a place where the past seems so vividly alive. I think its that awareness of landscape that brings the legends to life as well as the early settlement stories. It's a lot like parts of Skye, or Mull in Scotland- a magical place.

I think the locals appreciate that. I never had any impression they take it seriously in a woo sense. I'd bet that road bent because it's easier to go around lava than to blast or rip it. Icelandic roads are often unsurfaced, not wide, not fast, prone to washing out in floods. The elves came afterwards.:)
 
sowhat said:
I have to get this little anecdote in. We have life long friends, originaly Episcopalian, who got sucked up into the whole Fundy movement.
When the wild haired troll doll fad was in full swing, their kids were not allowed to have them, and we were warned about how evil they were.
We tried to picture some Chinese guy at the factory whose job it was to insert the little "evil" boxes.
Click to expand...

I think the whole southern "rock music is the devil's work" thing largely came about, or at least was exacerbated, when, in 1966, John Lennon declared that the Beatles were "...more popular than Jesus."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom