Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: How Do Christians View Russell's Teapot?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Olavssønn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 05:38 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian-Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    My known ancestry is Norwegian
    State
    Nordic Union Nordic Union
    Location
    Västra Värmland
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Politics
    Identitarian
    Religion
    Germanic & Indo-European Heathen
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sehnsucht View Post
    There is a reason solipsism is used as a reductio ad absurdum.
    Well, it is the truth, that the mind is the only thing we can be truly sure about. I'm not saying that material, external things don't really exist, but how can we prove that beyond any doubts?
    "Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity…" - Alain de Benoist
    Motpol.nu - Alternative Right - Arktos.com
    Click here for a sound-track to my posts.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:59 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Wales
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    liberal in spirit not politics
    Religion
    Questioning
    Posts
    163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Our understanding of whatever might be objective is always and inevitably filtered through the subjective though. That is why there's always going to be a stalemate between the empiricists and people who say there are things that exist but are not empirically demonstrable.
    Denn das Schöne ist nichts
 als des Schrecklichen Anfang, den wir noch grade ertragen,
 und wir bewundern es so, weil es gelassen verschmäht, uns zu zerstören.

  3. #13
    Pining for a Mythical Past
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sehnsucht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, May 16th, 2016 @ 03:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism, Pro Brexit
    Posts
    487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Olavssønn View Post
    Well, it is the truth, that the mind is the only thing we can be truly sure about. I'm not saying that material, external things don't really exist, but how can we prove that beyond any doubts?
    And how do you defend the view that the mind is the only thing that exists? It is worthless to discuss. And I am sure the material exists. My mind is the reality so... but then you'll come back at me with 'but so is mine and God/Gods exist' but the thing is you are not real... just a product of my mind.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Olavssønn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 05:38 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian-Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    My known ancestry is Norwegian
    State
    Nordic Union Nordic Union
    Location
    Västra Värmland
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Politics
    Identitarian
    Religion
    Germanic & Indo-European Heathen
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The thing is that it is absurd to even assume that religious concepts should be proven empirically, as some other profane phenomenon. In its own right, these things are just as "real" as anything else. Whether or not you pay attention to it is up to yourself, though. Just not expect that everyone embrace your own atheist philosophy/beliefs as some kind of only, exclusive, absolute, universal truth. That is actually to be trapped by the abrahamic, monotheist heritage. In reality, there exist many approaches to and interpretations of life.
    "Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity…" - Alain de Benoist
    Motpol.nu - Alternative Right - Arktos.com
    Click here for a sound-track to my posts.

  5. #15
    Pining for a Mythical Past
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sehnsucht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, May 16th, 2016 @ 03:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism, Pro Brexit
    Posts
    487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Olavssønn View Post
    The thing is that it is absurd to even assume that religious concepts should be proven empirically, as some other profane phenomenon.
    So why do you ignore the evidence given to you in the reality of... your own reality? Surely there would be empirical evidence if God existed in your own mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olavssønn View Post
    In its own right, these things are just as "real" as anything else.
    No they are not, they a perceived as real by some, that does not mean they are real. Everyone is wrong to a certain extent. Some more than others...

    Whether or not you pay attention to it is up to yourself, though. Just not expect that everyone embrace your own atheist philosophy/beliefs as some kind of only, exclusive, absolute, universal truth.
    Aye, I can't expect everyone to be right. But they won't make me incorrect.

    That is actually to be trapped by the abrahamic, monotheist heritage.
    No it is not. Without gods, not with one god. And if there is a god, it is reality, it is the universe, it is pantheism.

  6. #16
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 12:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,176
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,486
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,565
    Thanked in
    1,116 Posts
    Christianity finds its legitimacy either in tradition - with the true, undiluted faith being handed from generation to generation - and/or the idea that the Bible is the word of God, or perhaps some kind of personal, very direct spiritual experience. A believer would need no more proof than that.

    There's a difference between truth and facts. Is the book of Genesis factual - as in, should it be seen as a literal account? Of course not. But is it true? Yes, it's true. You need the Holy Spirit to discover the truth and the truth is more than a cumulation of facts. It's the meaning of these facts, that is truth.

    Modern science is not a religion as such, but it's a faith. For example, it takes at least as much faith to believe in the latest update of the secular myth of creation as in a religious one. In a way, scientism finds its validation too in (scholary and secular) tradition. If science applies its own standards to the scientism of organised atheism, all that is left is assumptions and theories about life, reality, nature and the cosmos. And no salvation, science, not unlike the devil, can't offer that to mankind either.

    Religions can come up with an explanation for the universe's existence and extra-ordinary events happening on this planet, but science can't fill in the gaps, yet it inevitably happens whenever science meets philosophy.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  7. #17
    Pining for a Mythical Past
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sehnsucht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, May 16th, 2016 @ 03:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism, Pro Brexit
    Posts
    487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Basically the answer to the question posed in this thread is that Christians and the religious ignore Russell's Teapot because it doesn't sit well with them.

  8. #18
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sehnsucht View Post

    Then, the religious can't claim a rational atheist has the burden of proof that God doesn't exist. That was what the analogy was to illustrate.
    It's still a strawman, since the analogy he chose expects of Christians to prove God in the same way the teapot should be proven. He chose this analogy because in his view Christians make a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, which they don't since they do not claim it to be scientific.

    If it was just about the burden of proof, he would be more convincing taking the agnostic point of view as a starting point and concluding that neither has a burden of proof. But by his analogy he is forcing Christians to justify their religion within a scientific paradigm, in which they didn't make the claim of the existence of God in the first place.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 03:47 PM
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Ancestry
    Danish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Denmark Denmark
    Location
    København
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Unemployed
    Politics
    Nationalist, conservative
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Christianity finds its legitimacy either in tradition - with the true, undiluted faith being handed from generation to generation - and/or the idea that the Bible is the word of God, or perhaps some kind of personal, very direct spiritual experience. A believer would need no more proof than that.

    There's a difference between truth and facts. Is the book of Genesis factual - as in, should it be seen as a literal account? Of course not. But is it true? Yes, it's true. You need the Holy Spirit to discover the truth and the truth is more than a cumulation of facts. It's the meaning of these facts, that is truth.

    Modern science is not a religion as such, but it's a faith. For example, it takes at least as much faith to believe in the latest update of the secular myth of creation as in a religious one. In a way, scientism finds its validation too in (scholary and secular) tradition. If science applies its own standards to the scientism of organised atheism, all that is left is assumptions and theories about life, reality, nature and the cosmos. And no salvation, science, not unlike the devil, can't offer that to mankind either.

    Religions can come up with an explanation for the universe's existence and extra-ordinary events happening on this planet, but science can't fill in the gaps, yet it inevitably happens whenever science meets philosophy.
    I had sort of expected at least part of the argument revolving around the idea that God is not an actual entity but rather some abstract concept.

    The problem is, that the Christian creed and the Bible makes some very specific events about how our earthly world works.
    And for centuries every single Christian practised his religion without doubting for a second that God monitored and passed judgement on every single aspect of Man's life and that the Universe was God's creation and could not have meaning without him.
    Eventually, modernity made the absurdity of this apparent to everybody.
    So now, believers claim that God is not the Sky Father watching over us but rather some abstract, philosophical concept. They hide behind dense layers of obscurantism and esoteric musings on the primum movens, the Watchmaker etc. with one simple purpose: To hide the fact that the belief in a omniscient and omnipotent God who cares about our lives is no longer a tenable belief. That the stories of their holy books were always meant to be allegories over concepts, virtues and emotions.

  10. #20
    Pining for a Mythical Past
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sehnsucht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, May 16th, 2016 @ 03:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism, Pro Brexit
    Posts
    487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    It's still a strawman, since the analogy he chose expects of Christians to prove God in the same way the teapot should be proven. He chose this analogy because in his view Christians make a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, which they don't since they do not claim it to be scientific.
    Did you not bloody read? The Christian has the burden of proof, not the unbeliever they try pass the burden of proof onto. Christians say God is real, but they have no proof for it. They are claiming God exists. They should provide evidence why those who do not should. That is not a straw man.

    If he had said something like 'Show me the man God then if he is real' or something alike to that, that would be a straw man.

    But by his analogy he is forcing Christians to justify their religion within a scientific paradigm, in which they didn't make the claim of the existence of God in the first place.
    Oh yes they did. I am pretty sure God is a core part of Christianity. What good is a Christian who doesn't believe in God?

    Anyway, the bible itself says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, September 5th, 2008, 11:23 PM
  2. Classify Kurt Russell
    By Iuzln in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Saturday, August 26th, 2006, 09:23 PM
  3. Classify Russell Crowe
    By Evolved in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: Monday, December 19th, 2005, 12:03 AM
  4. Classify Keri Russell
    By dazed&confused in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, August 9th, 2004, 11:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •