Disqus - Latest Comments for akakiwibear

Re: Debunking Christianity: Jerry Coyne On "Are There Other Ways of Gaining Knowledge Apart From Science?"

akakiwibear — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:43:29 -0000

Honest_ you
indirectly raise an interesting distinction; between Christians and theists in general. Certainly many Christians would take issue with a divine revelation from another source.
I wonder at their arrogance. But I must restrain myself, it is far too easy to bash fundamentalist Christians.

For many theists though this is not a problem. If one subscribes to the ‘one God’ school of theism then that which we call God, by any other name would still be God.
Different enculturation and different points in the evolution of theology give rise to different names and characterisations of God.

That the world’s religious moral codes contain core similarities is an argument for the existence of one shared source. ….yes I know there are differences as well, but obviously one needs to identify the cultural and (historic) time specific elements of a code before embarking n a comparison of fundamentals.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: That Which Disconfirms UFO’s From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

akakiwibear — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:43:46 -0000

you must present evidence to convince us that the claims about Paul are true. Its there. Do you dispute Paul's conversion? Hard to do right? Now given his conversion, on what grounds do you question that he did not believe the reason he gave for his conversion - you can't just dismiss his first hand account because you don't like it!

Either you accept or dismiss them with reason - that is a rational. Once you make a choice the burden of proof falls with you.

This is quite different from your little green men analogy - it is not accept until refuted, it is a case of 'put up or shut up'. I presume you may have reasons to dismiss ... gnomes causing landslides in Iceland ... , and I hope you could present them. There are credible reasons for dismissing the gnomes. To do so just because the fancy took you that way would be irrational - as would be dismissing the road to Damscus accounts without reason.

Sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: That Which Disconfirms UFO’s From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

akakiwibear — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:56:59 -0000

IF we had reliable evidence of at least ONE god that wasn't some feverish fantasy but we do.
The evidence exists for all the major religions, but to use Christianity as an example, consider the following set of events.

Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus.
a) There is no dispute that he had an experience that caused him to convert - fact
b) He attributed it to divine revelation – interpretation
c) He is aware that accepting his conversion places him in serious physical danger (he was after all active in the persecutions himself – fact
d) He is blinded by the experience – not contested

It is extremely unlikely that he would have placed himself in grave danger if he did not believe what he says happened – that he had a revelation from God. But on its own, still only interesting until one notes the related events:
1) Paul has second revelation; to go to Ananias – he is reluctant to do so, fearing for his safety. However believing it to be a revelation from God he goes to Ananias.
2) Ananias has a revelation to receive Paul – he too is reluctant given Paul’s record. However believing it to be a revelation from God he receives Paul
3) Paul’s sight is restored by the meeting with Ananias.

How do we explain these events?
We can argue none of happened – very weak.
We can dismiss it all as a coincidence of quite normal occurrences - requires considerable irrationality.
a) The complex sequence involving multiple parties would make that a really big leap of faith.
b) Coincidence is contrary to the testimony of those involved. To dismiss their evidence we require some substantive evidence – “It is contrary to atheist belief” is not sufficient, we need evidence to refute their claims. I know of none.

Now this is merely one instance which strongly supports the claim of the existence of God. There are numerous others from multiple religions. All of which stand with no evidence to refute the claims made.

On the preponderance of evidence from many such events, I suggest there is a strong case to acknowledge the possibility that God exists … for proof absolute I will email you after death ;)

Sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: That Which Disconfirms UFO’s From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

akakiwibear — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:31:26 -0000

You are so intellectually attractive when you rant without thinking!

Oh and read John again so you can see how really stupid you sounded in
imagining that he implied there was no other life in the universe ... no I said there was an implicit question there and my point was directed at drawing a parallel between atheist response to that question and the existence of God - please read my posts carefully first.

but zero reason to posit invisible life oh really? On statistical evidnece alone you atheists are in the minority with that view around 2.3% of world population. You are indeed arrogant to assume that the larger theist population contains no one smarter than you or at least as able as you to evaluate evidence, yet you believe your own intellectual abilities to exceed all of theirs, and that you are right and there is zero reason to posit invisible life and they are all wrong in finding, if nothing else, reason to posit invisible life .

Can't argue with such arrogance.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:52:44 -0000

The atheist thinks it's because their holy book is as man-made and as non-divine... then I have good news for you, you have no reason for being an atheist ;)

Consider for instance the Roman Catholic position on the bible. It is neither inerrant nor the literal word of God. It is not to be regarded as a scienticifcally or historically accurate reference text. It is the work of its authors, inspired to write (as my mother kept trying to inspire me to write a family history) and the inspired truth only as it pertains to the revelation of God's salvation - I did not check the exact words, but I think I have got most of it right.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:42:19 -0000

Muddying the definition of "God" so it becomes vague and unworkable does not give you the right to declare that all religions worship the same thing.

Firstly, there is a real difference in arguing the validity of a particular religion's characterisation of God and arguing if God exists. This site bases its atheist case on weaknesses in the evangelical Christian position – this is a bit like dismissing America’s foreign policy based on the position of the Tea Party.

Secondly, if there is one God (and all modern religions are monotheistic) then it stands to reason that the 'one' God of one religion is also the 'one' God of another.

Thirdly, I have not presented a vague and unworkable characterisation of God, but rather one that endorsed by many liberal theologians in the most scholarly denominations. A universal God, revealed within the context of each religion may make the simplicity of your atheism unworkable, but that is not my problem.

Atheism denies the existence of any God, not only the limited religious characterisations you can mount a case against ... or have I got it wrong?

Sala Kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: That Which Disconfirms UFO’s From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

akakiwibear — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:18:46 -0000

John this is way below your usual standard!

First, as we discovered the gods didn't live in the mountains
then believers … … so what? Theology like any other
discipline has made progress.

However the flaw in atheist reasoning is that when faced with the
realisation that the mountain was not God atheists conclude that there
is no God without exploring the other obvious alternative that God is
not a mountain. To be effective scepticism requires an open mind.

Second, Christian, why didn't your God tell us that …
… and microbiology would have made sense in 60AD let alone
4000BC? Get real.

More interesting is perhaps is the implicit question in your post; ‘Do
you believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe?’ If you apply
the same arguments you use to support your atheism you have to say ‘No,
there is no proof that such life exists – I do not believe it’.

Of course you are right just as there is no proof God exists, but based
on what we know it is highly likely that there is life out there.

You can choose to believe (and I mean believe rather than merely
suspect) that there is no life out there or choose to believe that there
is. The former requires you to disregard the evidence we have in the
form of knowledge about evolution and the universe, in the same way not
believing God exists requires you to disregard the evidence.

We are able to reach conclusions and adopt beliefs without absolute
proof - atheists and theists do it all the time. What distinguishes
theists from atheists is that theists have a defensible rational
position - I have yet to notice similar for atheists, and this posting
of yours certainly isn't one.

Sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:41:28 -0000

inspirational, sooo deep

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:30:26 -0000

just because all four of them exist does NOT mean that one of them can not be true for salvation. ... mmmm nor does it mean that all four can't be valid, does it?

If you believe in one God then why could that God not have revealed Himself to diverse groups? Are you really going to be the only ones in heaven? Ghandi misses out & and the Dalai Lama too? ... and I guess you exclude Mother Teresa while you are at it ...

Objectively, each religion is its own revelation
by God within the cultural context of the revelation. Each revelation by
God is tailored to the group to whom it is made, in a language they can
understand, using imagery and symbols they can appreciate and addresses
issues relevant to them.

This is not to say that we
have all created a god to meet our needs, rather it is that God’s
revelations to each group meets their needs. The key is in the word
revelation and to acknowledge that the recipients of the revelation are
only human and may get bits of it wrong, or that their successors may
screw it up or even abuse it.Sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:40:01 -0000

"You don't need any religion to do this" true but you should not deny the fact that it is a clear & consistent message of religions. I don't see it as a clear and consistent message in atheist writings. No strike!

"You do know that Buddhists and certain forms of animism do not believe in a god?" and your point is? I know this will be difficult for you but try to figure out ... Buddhists don't believe in a personal god as say Christians do, but they do believe in beings in higher realms. So they have a different name for and description of God ... to mangle the well known "What's in a name? that which we call God. By any other name would be as divine" . No strike!
IF you want to argue the existence of God you need to think beyond the confines of any one religion.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:27:27 -0000

Oh dear, you really don’t know what you are talking about … Certainly you'd expect a real [God] to write something other than "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" psalm 137:9.

Psalm 139 is a lament, a song of despair by the Jews in exile. The psalmist wishes retribution on Babylon. Note the psalmist, NOT God.

God did not write the bible, nor dictate it. Christians say the writers were inspired to write; so they would argue that in this case the psalmist was inspired to cry out is despair at the plight of the Jews denied the right to worship their God whilst in captivity. The bible is a collection of writings spread over thousands of years only a feeble mind would ignore the context of the writings.

Your argument seems to depend on the very limited view that the Bible is entirely without error and the literal word of God, written by God. The major denominations do not believe that but you rely on it as the core of your argument? Have you nothing better?

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:16:23 -0000

If god was real and omnipotent-- then he could have inspired a much better, clearer, more scientifically prescient text. yes he could have, but why? This way people get to think for themselves. Also it provides for the text to be interpreted in different times and contexts to address issues that would have been incomprehensible to the people of the time.

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:12:04 -0000

You do realize that when you examine the actual beliefs of these denominations you get a contradictory mish-mash? ... mmm?

Actually no ... there are some clear and consistent messages, not only between denominations, but also between religions .... treat others as you would like to be treated is one, that God exists is another ... these are major platforms - yes there are differences in doctrine, but those generally enable the context of the revelation to be accommodated.

Anyway, why is contradictory a problem? Contradictory does not dictate that both are wrong, or even only one is rioght ... contradictory views can all be valid.

Yes some denominations do seem to have 'lost the plot' which is way there is merit in those that adhere to a structured theological leadership.

Re: Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Disagree?

akakiwibear — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:05:46 -0000

Bishop Tutu observes that God is not a Christian, he also considers that all Christian denominations are valid … as are all religions.

So how to respond to John? The thrust of his post is perhaps These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power.

This is a wide generalisation and while it is true that some do it is also true that some, such as Tutu and other liberal Anglicans, don’t.

Diversity in religion is a strength of theist camp. God’s revelation to people is contextual – geographic, cultural etc. Each revelation has addressed the specific needs of the human context in which it is made.
That some have exploited these differences for their own ends is unfortunate, but is not a criticism of the differences per se – rather a criticism of those who exploit them … as John does.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:08:07 -0000

articulett, you really need to let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

You say you are sure the Sunnis would not be bombing the Shia if not for theological difference. I suggest you dig a bit deeper into the geopolitical history of the region. Who formed the core of Saddam's power base? Who were the opposition; where did they come from; why were they in conflict - which resources, where were the resources, who controlled them bulk of resources; whose land was it .... etc?
If you work it through you will find that the conflict is regional in origin. The regions had their own tribal identity and as is common the regions had different religious affiliations.
It is easier to identify ones target by where they worship than by the clothes they wear or the car they drive.

With your The same with the upheaval in Northern Ireland between the Protestants and the Catholics you again display a marked lack of appreciation of the history.
If the troubles in Ireland were simply religious ask yourself what was role of the British government?
To simplify, Nth Ireland was a land grab by the British that moved Irish landowning farmers into servitude on the land they once owned. Nothing religious about that!

Now an interesting bit about the troubles in Ireland when they started to escalate in the mid 1900s.
Ireland had developed beyond its farming roots and the decedents of the dispossessed Irish and the British now dressed the same and did the same jobs.
There were many neighbourhoods where Catholic and Protestant lived in harmony .... hmmm, maybe religion was not really a problem?

But there were, from the IRA's perspective injustices to righted - they wanted and needed to strike out, but they had a problem, the previously obvious visible differences between the groups had largely vanished .... but, and this is where religion came in, it provided a simple way to distinguish between the decedents of the Irish and their British overlords- just watch where they went to church on Sunday.

So the IRA selected their targets based on religious affiliation - it was easy. Nine times out of ten it worked, they hit a decendent of the Brits ... yes it was helped by the fact that the British had used the religious differences in the past to as a basis for their discrimination against the Irish so they could stir up the 'them' and 'us' divide essential in any conflict. So religion again became a convenient differentiator in a struggle for political power.
But to say it was the cause as you do … come on now, be rational and look beyond the narrow confines of your arguments.

Sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 02:45:14 -0000

Since religion is not an entity that can do anything, it cannot of itself do good or harm - it is peoples' responce that does the good or harm.

But I do agree with you that religous belief has been used and is still used to justify harm. In that sense I am not as you say blind to the harms of religion. It is indeed a powerful instrument and in the wrong hands harm results, that much is obvious to anyone.

I am quite free in my criticism of all those who misuse religion (any religion) to promote harm and that includes so called millitant atheists as much as Christians.

However I am perhaps more pragmatic in my approach and I recognise that it is people that do either good or harm with religion or the lack thereof. Therefore I would rather direct my criticism towards those who do the harm than towards the tools they use.

It goes against the grain to blame the instrument and not the perpetrator.

I object to you giving perpatrators a free pass essentailly at the expense of their victims so that you can grind your atheist axe. It strikes me as cruel opportunism on your part.

For example the news today carries a report At least 30 people have been killed in a series of bomb attacks in
central Iraq targeting Shia pilgrims marking the festival of Ashura. The attack is reported to have been carried by a Sunni group. I suspect you would blame this on religion. Doing so would be a free pass to the group the planned teh attacks to coincide with the international Iraq conference and their grab for power. It might even deflect attention from the country that precipitated the tradgedy in Iraq in the first place.

Perhaps it is I who sees the big picture.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:03:57 -0000

You say of me “you are unable to see the good in the voices of others who post here because you think Christianity is true or good or something worth protecting”
I am not sure you are in a position to tell me what motivates me, especially since you seem to have it quite wrong.
The reason I fail to see the “good’ in the voices of others is that there is in my view no good. They are, in my view, actually assisting those who perpetrate horrors.

There are four issues at play here.
(1) Religion is used to differentiate groups to identify an “enemy” and that may lead to horrors. But religion itself is inert - it is individuals and groups that use and misuse it. You surely don't speak out against everything that can be misused to bring about harm do you? Migrant workers - they keep our countries runnign but some attack them (yes physically) because they are migrants.
But I hope you speak out against the abuse rather than against migrant workers as you do against religion.

(2) The OP is directing us to Harris who argues that religion is the greatest single barrier to world harmony. This is the point I take issue with. By focusing on religion to the exclusion of other causes he gives a free pass to those who influence and set socio-economic, resource and international policy that, even you must admit, causes more harm to more people every day than abuse of religion.
I don’t see the good in adding your voice to that free pass.

(3) More importantly though, by blaming religion itself for horrors, we give yet another free pass – now to those who misuse religion for their own ends. We – all of us, muslin, Christian, Hindu … atheist – would make a more positive contribution by focusing on the individuals abusing religion. After all, the major religions teach a version of ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’. By addressing the misuse of religion and specifically by identifying those who ignore this for their own ends we can all say that we have done something worthwhile – contributed to a better world.
Not sure how you get to the moral high ground – the good in the voices when you willy-nilly bash religion including the ‘do to others …’ teaching which is core to all of them rather than focusing on the individuals that are actually to blame.

(4) Finally, religion is not alone in being used to sow inter-group violence. If you removed religion do you for one moment imagine that those encouraging the perpetrating of horrors for their own ends would not find another trigger – like race, language, geographic location … or even sports team supported.
So yes there may be some merit in arguing to abolish religion because it would remove a convenient tool of the rabble-rouser – your voice may have some feel good factor about it – but will you really thwart anyone looking for an inter-group difference to exploit?

Perhaps you may succeed in erasing the teaching of ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’ from humanity. No I don’t see the good in that either.

Sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:37:19 -0000

Gandolf, I am sorry if i caused you distress by seeming to dismissing your personal suffering from a cult … I did not intend that. I wanted to refocus blame for the ills of society and seem to have messed up in my enthusiasm.
Sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:32:21 -0000

Sir_russ you say Here in the US religion is a primary
source of conflict so then I guess the unconstrained spiral of the
rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer does not lead to conflict but
only to suffering …. Yay for suffering over conflict, let’s focus the debate on
religion and ignore the debate on socio-economic policy.

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:31:47 -0000

Articulett says of me that you go out of your way to disregard the harms of faith on the contrary I worry about the harm a faith in religion as the cause of all our ills results in. But, to your point. Actually I am not a fan religion per se. I acknowledge that it has been misused in some way or another over the centuries … and that is where my concern lies, that by deflecting attention away from the individuals and policies that hind behind the religious unrest they often themselves promote we give them a free ride.

You say But a lot of harm in society is done specifically BECAUSE of religious beliefs I say because of those who see personal gain in exploiting cultural, ethnic or religious differences … if you insist on giving those truly responsible a free ride so that you can bash religion that is your choice and they love you for making it.

sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: I'm Blogging at Freethoughtblogs.com, So Here's What I've Decided

akakiwibear — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:04:34 -0000

Can't have your cake and eat it John, you actually have to make a choice ... but as a rational atheist that should be easier for you than for an irrational deluded theist ;-)

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 02:51:56 -0000

You wrong Gandolf, it has got nothing to do with cults, or religious people or atheists - it is about you and me accepting responsibility for our role in society. If you and I live to so as to create a more just society then there are two less people pushing to increase the gap between rich and poor, two less people wasting the planet's resources, two less people ignoring the starving, two more people visiting the sick, two more people helping to cloth the poor ... and if you and I can do then maybe we can persude more to follow .... but your c**p about cults is a waste of space!

sala kahle - peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 23:41:58 -0000

Gandolf, you have fallen into the very trap that concerns me. You present religion as the barrier to a just society, but I ask you who actually has the power to change society - the politicians through their social and economic legislative programmes ... but don't they just love it when you blame religion rather than them!

Sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

akakiwibear — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:05:12 -0000

For once I find I agree with some of what Harris is about
He says ”it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught” and that is equally true of teachings of Christianity, Isalm etc.

When he says "Therefore, one of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrationa"l. he rightly wins my support.
But then he messes it all up when he says ”Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. “ and puts his argument into the same category as those he criticises – that of being about religion.

Certainly religion has been used for generations to whip up sectarian feeling and violence – of course that's a problem. But to focus on religion as the primary cause as Harris does with “Nothing stands in the way” … is to miss the point and to direct us away from the real problems and hence from any possible solution.

Communities with considerable religious, ethnic and cultural diversity constantly demonstrate an ability to live in harmony provided there is a just society with equal rights and a fair distribution of wealth. When these factors do not exist then religious, ethnic and cultural diversity will be used by those seeking to “right the wrongs” for their side and generally to gain more than a fair share of everything including power.

To overlook the root socio-economic causes of conflict between groups by blaming it mainly on religion is playing into the hands of those who use religious & ethnic diversity for their own ends. It deflects attention from political and economic leaders who should be doing something to reslve teh problems rather than using them to further their own agendas and wealth.

Sala kahle -peace

Re: Debunking Christianity: Omni-Faults: The Conflicts of the Attributes of God

akakiwibear — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:12:04 -0000

think about the arguments