Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I just read the rest of

I just read the rest of Angel's stuff...the born again thing, geeze.

 

We're in the rabbit hole now.  Angel, although you are knowingly leaving reason for the warm embrace of superstition, I think deep down you know how this conversation went.  I hope you can learn to be honest with yourself someday.

 

I really am happier now, if only because I'm not afraid anymore...and the world finally makes sense, even if the truth is not always comforting.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:To be a

angelobrazil wrote:
To be a christian isn't really something  based on reason in first place. It's based on faith. And on love the next. It's based on a real experience with God the father, the son, and the holy spirit.


Great. Okay, well when you want to have a conversation based on reason, then I'll have no problem. Until then, I'm afraid we probably won't understand each other.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3689
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Atheism

angelobrazil wrote:
Atheism is the only religion, that thinks it doesn't need God.

There can be atheistic religions, but atheism is not a religion. An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God.

There are Buddhists who don't believe in God. Most polytheists don't believe in any "God" similar to yours. Pagan religions, Japanese religions, Native American religions, etc.  

mellestad wrote:
I was a theist for probably 19 years.  When I started to seriously doubt my religion, I was terrified.  I spent half my time desperately searching for answers that made sense because I was scared of hell, and even more scard of ceasing to exist.  I was desperate to convince myself the god I used to believe in was true.

I was never able to reconcile what I wanted, with what I found.  Eventually I came to terms with reality and accepted life as an atheist.  Your point is silly, why wouldn't I want to be immortal?  It is easy to be a Christian, and it is a huge, warm blanket.  If I could believe it, I would...but the whole thing is just too crazy.

I've had the fortune of being born into a non-religious family (not counting the government). However, there was a point in my life where I *almost* became a theist. To this day, I'm still not completely sure how it happened, but it involved a cute girl and a lot of emotional cop-outs.  

Amazingly enough, during that period, something that I said pretty often to describe my position on God was, "My brain says no, but my heart says yes." It must be emphasized that at that time, I hadn't read any religious texts yet, decided on my natural sciences major yet, or studied the argument regarding God. So, I was, in a sense, vulnerable to conversion. But, unlike most people, I did the stupid/smart thing. I started reading the Bible, Book of Mormon, Quran, and other books, praying, going to church, studying the possibility of God existing......Metaphorically, I was trying to get my brain to follow my heart. (Un)fortunately, the more I learned, the farther my brain went, until I finally took my head out of the sand and figured out that heart=emotions. Then, it was pretty much over.   

Angelobrazil, I know you'll just believe I'm lieing or delusional or something, but if you really proved the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, I think most of the people on this forum would become theists. Depending on which God we're talking about, I might like it if God existed. For instance, the God of the Old Testament is a malevolent douchebag, but Jesus isn't so bad. Seriously, I don't believe in God because I don't think he exists. I think the terms used to define Him are incoherent, and I think the evidence isn't there. I don't cling to atheism because I want to be independent. That doesn't matter to me any more. What matters to me is what is true. Take whatever you want from that, but think about it.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Faith, in the religious

'Faith, in the religious sense, is a nice sounding name for what is actually wilful self-deception. It is the opposite of Truth and Knowledge, it is wrapping yourself in a security blanket to shield yourself from reality.

None of the points in the OP hold up to rational scrutiny.

The FTA is, as Dawkins acknowledges, the closest to having something going for it, but, as he also agrees, still comes nowhere near proving 'God' as a meaningful, logical answer.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'Faith, in

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Faith, in the religious sense, is a nice sounding name for what is actually wilful self-deception. It is the opposite of Truth and Knowledge, it is wrapping yourself in a security blanket to shield yourself from reality.

None of the points in the OP hold up to rational scrutiny.

The FTA is, as Dawkins acknowledges, the closest to having something going for it, but, as he also agrees, still comes nowhere near proving 'God' as a meaningful, logical answer.

Does Dawkins hold to that in a philosophical sense? It seems that science stands in contrast to any FTA.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Atheism is the only religion, that thinks it doesn't need God.

There can be atheistic religions, but atheism is not a religion. An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God.

There are Buddhists who don't believe in God. Most polytheists don't believe in any "God" similar to yours. Pagan religions, Japanese religions, Native American religions, etc.  

mellestad wrote:
I was a theist for probably 19 years.  When I started to seriously doubt my religion, I was terrified.  I spent half my time desperately searching for answers that made sense because I was scared of hell, and even more scard of ceasing to exist.  I was desperate to convince myself the god I used to believe in was true.

 

I was never able to reconcile what I wanted, with what I found.  Eventually I came to terms with reality and accepted life as an atheist.  Your point is silly, why wouldn't I want to be immortal?  It is easy to be a Christian, and it is a huge, warm blanket.  If I could believe it, I would...but the whole thing is just too crazy.

I've had the fortune of being born into a non-religious family (not counting the government). However, there was a point in my life where I *almost* became a theist. To this day, I'm still not completely sure how it happened, but it involved a cute girl and a lot of emotional cop-outs.  

Amazingly enough, during that period, something that I said pretty often to describe my position on God was, "My brain says no, but my heart says yes." It must be emphasized that at that time, I hadn't read any religious texts yet, decided on my natural sciences major yet, or studied the argument regarding God. So, I was, in a sense, vulnerable to conversion. But, unlike most people, I did the stupid/smart thing. I started reading the Bible, Book of Mormon, Quran, and other books, praying, going to church, studying the possibility of God existing......Metaphorically, I was trying to get my brain to follow my heart. (Un)fortunately, the more I learned, the farther my brain went, until I finally took my head out of the sand and figured out that heart=emotions. Then, it was pretty much over.   

Angelobrazil, I know you'll just believe I'm lieing or delusional or something, but if you really proved the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, I think most of the people on this forum would become theists. Depending on which God we're talking about, I might like it if God existed. For instance, the God of the Old Testament is a malevolent douchebag, but Jesus isn't so bad. Seriously, I don't believe in God because I don't think he exists. I think the terms used to define Him are incoherent, and I think the evidence isn't there. I don't cling to atheism because I want to be independent. That doesn't matter to me any more. What matters to me is what is true. Take whatever you want from that, but think about it.

 

 

 

My problem is I was raised steeped in religion.  I honestly don't know how I did not end up as a "true" believer.  My family was/is deeply religious, my friends were religious, I went to a religious school, and I did not have one, single, non-christian friend.  Not  a single one.  But somehow I ended up having long, intensely emotional debates with all my friends about my doubts and gradually drifted away from Christianity, then flirted with all the other religions before realizing I was searching for a feeling, not a truth.  

 

I will admit though, I was never a "born again Christian" in the sense that I drank the Kool-aid as an adult, but you have to have believe in the first place to do that anyway.  I don't know if I ever felt the urge of faith.  I mean, I prayed, I went to church, studied the Bible, went to religious retreats, I believed, etc...but I never had that crazy-eyed fanaticism you see in the people who really believe.  (To Angel, I don't mean that as an insult, I am saying that, as an atheist, you can spot the people who really take their stuff seriously from a mile away, because they look, well, crazy.  Your average youth group leader tends to display the attitude, so do couples newly in love, or parents with a new baby).

 

My final gasp of religion was with Wicca (hey, I was a teenager, leave me alone!).  I still love the morality, the freedom and even the ritual...but it is total crap.  I remember thinking that I just couldn't make myself swallow it, just like I couldn't make myself swallow Christianity or Buddhism or anything else...after going through all the religions one thing I realized is that they were all pretty much the same, and my objections applied to all of them equally.  Plus, when I re-read the Bible as a teenager...wow, what an eye opener.  As a kid it all seemed pretty reasonable, as a young adult the entire thing was absurd.  Useful, but only if you are interested in what ancient goat-herders and crazy Jewish carpenters thought.  (Although, I think the Jesus story is tragic now...I mean, come on...you have this crazy, brilliant, charismatic guy who probably really believed he was the son of god, and his last moments are filled with pain and despair.  What a shitty way to die.  "Eli Eli lama sabachthani!" It gives me the chills.). It is all fun and games until you get to the mysticism.

 

I never went the down the path of retaining the religion without the mysticism though, like a deist or a very liberal Christian.  It seems pretty clear to me that when you do that you are just retaining the feeling but giving up on trying to make it real.  Without some kind of physical expectation of the supernatural, religion seems useless except as a thought problem and there are plenty of totally secular thought problems if that is what gets you going.  

 

If you have ever listened to Julia Sweeney's monologue, that is almost exactly what I went through, only not Catholic.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:BobSpence1

jcgadfly wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The FTA is, as Dawkins acknowledges, the closest to having something going for it, but, as he also agrees, still comes nowhere near proving 'God' as a meaningful, logical answer.

Does Dawkins hold to that in a philosophical sense? It seems that science stands in contrast to any FTA.

I think Dawkins finds the idea of having to be careful with his use of language offensive, so he says a lot of gee-whiz sorts of things like "sure, why not aliens?" and "I suppose fine tuning is compelling." My guess is that his curiosity and enjoyment of science can't be ruined by some half-wit's version of what he says, so he just goes for it. When he paraphrased his editor friend saying "We think science is interesting, and if you don't, you can fuck off," you know he was echoing his own feelings.

I doubt very highly that when he suggested the fine tuning argument in that "four horsemen" video, he was actually suggesting something philosophically damning. It seemed more of a "what's the best looking car from the 60s?" or "who would win in a fight between centaurs and ninjas?" kind of question than something he wanted to entertain seriously.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:jcgadfly

HisWillness wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The FTA is, as Dawkins acknowledges, the closest to having something going for it, but, as he also agrees, still comes nowhere near proving 'God' as a meaningful, logical answer.

Does Dawkins hold to that in a philosophical sense? It seems that science stands in contrast to any FTA.

I think Dawkins finds the idea of having to be careful with his use of language offensive, so he says a lot of gee-whiz sorts of things like "sure, why not aliens?" and "I suppose fine tuning is compelling." My guess is that his curiosity and enjoyment of science can't be ruined by some half-wit's version of what he says, so he just goes for it. When he paraphrased his editor friend saying "We think science is interesting, and if you don't, you can fuck off," you know he was echoing his own feelings.

I doubt very highly that when he suggested the fine tuning argument in that "four horsemen" video, he was actually suggesting something philosophically damning. It seemed more of a "what's the best looking car from the 60s?" or "who would win in a fight between centaurs and ninjas?" kind of question than something he wanted to entertain seriously.

 

 

I don't know much about cards, so I was going to be a smart-ass and go look up a car from the 60's.  I couldn't find anything that didn't suck Sad

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I just read

mellestad wrote:

I just read the rest of Angel's stuff...the born again thing, geeze.

 

We're in the rabbit hole now.  Angel, although you are knowingly leaving reason for the warm embrace of superstition, I think deep down you know how this conversation went.  I hope you can learn to be honest with yourself someday.

 

I really am happier now, if only because I'm not afraid anymore...and the world finally makes sense, even if the truth is not always comforting.

 

well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing... 

BTW.  who told you, that as a christian you have to be afraid  of god ? as christians, we have forgiveness of our sins, and a happy expectation and hope  of forever life, based on the confirmation of the holy spirit, that we are the beloved children of God. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I just read the rest of Angel's stuff...the born again thing, geeze.

 

We're in the rabbit hole now.  Angel, although you are knowingly leaving reason for the warm embrace of superstition, I think deep down you know how this conversation went.  I hope you can learn to be honest with yourself someday.

 

I really am happier now, if only because I'm not afraid anymore...and the world finally makes sense, even if the truth is not always comforting.

 

well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing... 

BTW.  who told you, that as a christian you have to be afraid  of god ? as christians, we have forgiveness of our sins, and a happy expectation and hope  of forever life, based on the confirmation of the holy spirit, that we are the beloved children of God. 

It's in the bible, OT and NT

http://www.feargod.net/verses.php

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I just read the rest of Angel's stuff...the born again thing, geeze.

 

We're in the rabbit hole now.  Angel, although you are knowingly leaving reason for the warm embrace of superstition, I think deep down you know how this conversation went.  I hope you can learn to be honest with yourself someday.

 

I really am happier now, if only because I'm not afraid anymore...and the world finally makes sense, even if the truth is not always comforting.

 

well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing... 

BTW.  who told you, that as a christian you have to be afraid  of god ? as christians, we have forgiveness of our sins, and a happy expectation and hope  of forever life, based on the confirmation of the holy spirit, that we are the beloved children of God. 

I know Pascal's wager well - it's a weak argument. You're making a guess and hoping that you've picked the right god. Some of us just lost interest in playing guessing games and decided to go on with the life we have.

Perhaps it's not a question of "I'm not afraid" as "I no longer have the burden of living my life in paranoia - worrying about whether I have the right god or that I might do something to offend him/her/it/them."

The KJV uses "fear" but it's vague in what it means. Your concept, though brings me back to my point from some time ago. Because you have the option of blanket forgiveness, you can sin as often as you want (provided you tell god you're really sorry, ask for his forgiveness, and promise you won't do it again - at least until the next time you choose to). If you're Calvinist, you may not even have that worry.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I know

jcgadfly wrote:

I know Pascal's wager well - it's a weak argument.

Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

jcgadfly wrote:

You're making a guess and hoping that you've picked the right god. Some of us just lost interest in playing guessing games and decided to go on with the life we have.

I don't make simply a guess. I know the God i believed in. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Perhaps it's not a question of "I'm not afraid" as "I no longer have the burden of living my life in paranoia - worrying about whether I have the right god or that I might do something to offend him/her/it/them.".

Well, what you describe is quit far away from what i experience. My faith has become a deep , rocksolid conviction. And i do not have experienced a God, which just waits me to do something wrong, to punish me. The God i know, is a loving father, who cares about his children, and wishes the best for them. 

Infact, i have been wonderfully blessed with many  blessings. God has prepared great things for the ones, that love him.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The KJV uses "fear" but it's vague in what it means. Your concept, though brings me back to my point from some time ago. Because you have the option of blanket forgiveness, you can sin as often as you want

its actually quit different.

Ephesians 2:10 

For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I know Pascal's wager well - it's a weak argument.

Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

jcgadfly wrote:

You're making a guess and hoping that you've picked the right god. Some of us just lost interest in playing guessing games and decided to go on with the life we have.

I don't make simply a guess. I know the God i believed in. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Perhaps it's not a question of "I'm not afraid" as "I no longer have the burden of living my life in paranoia - worrying about whether I have the right god or that I might do something to offend him/her/it/them.".

Well, what you describe is quit far away from what i experience. My faith has become a deep , rocksolid conviction. And i do not have experienced a God, which just waits me to do something wrong, to punish me. The God i know, is a loving father, who cares about his children, and wishes the best for them. 

Infact, i have been wonderfully blessed with many  blessings. God has prepared great things for the ones, that love him.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The KJV uses "fear" but it's vague in what it means. Your concept, though brings me back to my point from some time ago. Because you have the option of blanket forgiveness, you can sin as often as you want

its actually quit different.

Ephesians 2:10 

For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

 

 

1. Pascal didn't know a whole lot about religions other than his own.

2. With all due respect, you don't know your God is right anymore than the Jew or the Muslim knows his is right. You are still risking Allah's hell, for example.

3a. A rock solid conviction is not knowledge.

3b. It's only natural that you and the people who wrote the Bible believe Hod is on your side (or vice versa). God is a human creation, after all.

3c. I fear the sugar daddy god you know is a Pauline construct and stands in contrast to the rest of scripture.

4. So you have the concept of God and Christ as created by Paul of Tarsus? Now it makes sense that your view doesn't square with the OT and the Gospels.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:well, you

angelobrazil wrote:
well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing...

If nobody's going to call it, I will:

You were earlier wondering if an atheist was more rational than a theist. Let's take you and ... mellestad. Your arguments at this point are irrational appeals to nonsensical books, and claims of knowledge you refuse to back up (except with references to the same nonsensical books). mellestad has told you about his experiences and reasoning.

Winner: mellestad. In this case, an atheist is more rational than a theist.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3689
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:well, you

angelobrazil wrote:

well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing... 

BTW.  who told you, that as a christian you have to be afraid  of god ? as christians, we have forgiveness of our sins, and a happy expectation and hope  of forever life, based on the confirmation of the holy spirit, that we are the beloved children of God. 

*facepalm*

Pascal's Wager? Seriously?!? Do we actually have to go through this?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing...

If nobody's going to call it, I will:

You were earlier wondering if an atheist was more rational than a theist. Let's take you and ... mellestad. Your arguments at this point are irrational appeals to nonsensical books, and claims of knowledge you refuse to back up (except with references to the same nonsensical books). mellestad has told you about his experiences and reasoning.

Winner: mellestad. In this case, an atheist is more rational than a theist.

There are many different aspects to be taken in consideration, when talking about  the bible, faith, and reason. There are certainly things in the bible , that rely entirely on faith, and spiritual, subjective experiences , that are strictly personal. These things cannot be quantified or qualified in rational manner, and therefore, there is missing a oposit argument of atheists, since these do not make such experiences. Non-christians are dead for spiritual life and spiritual experiences. So in this aspect, there is no winner of one side. But take matter of natural things, origin of life, of the universe, than there are two oposit views......  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
well, you might know pascal wagers argument.... you never know.... if jesus is the truth, you are screwed.... and you don't know if he actualy is the truth, he claims to be..... so i honestly doubt about your " i am not afraid anymore " thing...

If nobody's going to call it, I will:

You were earlier wondering if an atheist was more rational than a theist. Let's take you and ... mellestad. Your arguments at this point are irrational appeals to nonsensical books, and claims of knowledge you refuse to back up (except with references to the same nonsensical books). mellestad has told you about his experiences and reasoning.

Winner: mellestad. In this case, an atheist is more rational than a theist.

There are many different aspects to be taken in consideration, when talking about  the bible, faith, and reason. There are certainly things in the bible , that rely entirely on faith, and spiritual, subjective experiences , that are strictly personal. These things cannot be quantified or qualified in rational manner, and therefore, there is missing a oposit argument of atheists, since these do not make such experiences. Non-christians are dead for spiritual life and spiritual experiences. So in this aspect, there is no winner of one side. But take matter of natural things, origin of life, of the universe, than there are two oposit views......  

Actually, no.

On matters of origin, your argument is still based entirely on faith. Everything you cited in this thread makes sense only if you are sold on the fine tuning argument from the beginning. You're doing your research to fit your conclusion. Science does research to get to a conclusion.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Oh, man.  Now we are back

Oh, man.  Now we are back to square one...you "know" that god is god.  So prove it!  Your life has been "blessed" because you are in a first world country.  If "you" would have been born in a bad spot in Africa, you would have starved to death when you were two years old regardless of what deity your parents prayed to.

 

I think the idea of a personal, loving god is the least probably of all theologies.  Especially the god your worship...come on man, the dude is a total bastard.  There is zero reason to call the Christian god a "loving" god in the way you mean, it is not supported anywhere in the Bible, and in fact seems to be a pretty recent development.  "God" scared the bejeezus out of the people who, theoretically, should have known him best (Jews).

 

I was hoping for a better end to this conversation than being quoted Bible verses.  Now you tell us that since we are not born again, we are spiritually dead and that is why we don't think your arguments are sound.  Let's pretend for a minute that we were debating something else and see how this works.

 

Angel: If you eat pop-rocks and Coke, your belly will explode.

mellestad: I see no evidence of that.  Indeed, I have eaten pop-rocks and Coke and remain here, belly un-exploded.

Angel: You would believe me if you had absolute faith in e-mail chain letters like I do.  When I read an email chain letter I believe it, because it fills me with light and joy, so that means it is true.  You are not filled with light and joy when you read an email chain letter, you ask for someone to prove that it is true, and so you are dead to all light and joy, and that means you are wrong.  Let me read the email chain letter to you, so you might know light and joy: Lo, if you trust that pop-rocks and Coke will distend your belly beyond the limits of your feeble body, you will know light and joy forever and ever!

mellestad: *sigh*

Angel: Yay, I win!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, mellestad, when all

Well, mellestad, when all one have is circular logic, the best one can do is expand its circumference.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Of course your god exists,

Of course your god exists, what about all the other gods? Shiva? Brahma? Odin?, Zeus?, Osiris? Popol Vuh? Or any other countless amount of gods?

In the end, your fine tune argument, doesn't prove that it is YOUR specific god. On the contrary the fine tune argument makes no statement about such said god, what the motives were/are, if it is friendly, hostile or indifferent towards life, if it actively interferes with the universe by suspending any of the physical laws of nature.

You can make the argument that the universe is designed, sure, but it's a WHOLE other topic to prove that it is specifically your god. So your argument really doesn't prove your point that your god and your beliefs are real, and that a rational atheist should believe in them.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:On matters of

jcgadfly wrote:

On matters of origin, your argument is still based entirely on faith. Everything you cited in this thread makes sense only if you are sold on the fine tuning argument from the beginning. You're doing your research to fit your conclusion. Science does research to get to a conclusion.

 

Well, why then Evolution theory is called a scientific theory ? Its  based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor. Isn't that pretty much a conclusion , which is not even based on empirical hard facts ? 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

On matters of origin, your argument is still based entirely on faith. Everything you cited in this thread makes sense only if you are sold on the fine tuning argument from the beginning. You're doing your research to fit your conclusion. Science does research to get to a conclusion.

 

Well, why then Evolution theory is called a scientific theory ? Its  based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor. Isn't that pretty much a conclusion , which is not even based on empirical hard facts ? 

Ah, you misunderstand the word "theory". A theory is a unifying principle or group of principles that explains a certain phenomenon.

In this case, as the change of alleleic frequencies in response to environmental pressures over time has been observed, the theory of evolution is no assumption.

Tell me, do you accept the theory of gravity or are you a proponent of intelligent falling?

Oh, by the way, we have the fossils. We win.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

On matters of origin, your argument is still based entirely on faith. Everything you cited in this thread makes sense only if you are sold on the fine tuning argument from the beginning. You're doing your research to fit your conclusion. Science does research to get to a conclusion.

 

Well, why then Evolution theory is called a scientific theory ? Its  based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor. Isn't that pretty much a conclusion , which is not even based on empirical hard facts ? 

It is not actually "based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor". That is a conclusion based on studying both the fossil record, and even more importantly, the genetic evidence in the correspondences between the DNA and RNA of different life-forms, which provides very 'hard' empirical evidence of the relatedness of all life-forms so far studied.

As a somewhat separate issue, it is pretty certain that there is a 'common ancestor' to everyone alive today, or more ancestors, depending how you trace back, whether thru matrilineal or patrilineal lines of descent. The Most Recent Common Ancestor of modern humans has been estimated to have lived anywhere from a few thousand years ago, or back to paleolithic times. This is, of course, not directly relevant to the origins of life, or even of homo sapiens.

Darwin's original insight was that species could give rise to variations which ultimately were identifiable as new species, based initially on his observations of the obvious similarities between different species of finches and other animals on separate islands in the Galapagos.

It is quite possible that there more than one initial starting points, maybe many ancestral life-forms, and there is active investigation into finding out if there are some traces of an independent life-lineage, which, among other things, would provide valuable insight into both the process of abiogenesis and the possibilities of life in other parts of the Universe.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Oh, by the

jcgadfly wrote:
Oh, by the way, we have the fossils. We win.

Did I tell you guys about the cathedral in Guelph? It was built about 30 years after Darwin's Origin of Species, out of limestone. A friend of mine and I were walking past it, and she said, "hey, look at the irony!" I didn't know what she meant until I got closer.

The church is made out of limestone. The cathedral is literally covered in fossils.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3689
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Well, why

angelobrazil wrote:
Well, why then Evolution theory is called a scientific theory ?

Why is it called a theory?

Because it is a theory. It's an overarching explanation for the diversity of life. 

Quote:
Its  based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor.

Can you tell me the name of one respectable biologist or show me one official textbook that says this? Can you show me any evidence, any account, anything beyond your ignorant opinion to support this assertion? No, you can't.

You don't even know what the word "theory" means. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Well, why

angelobrazil wrote:

Well, why then Evolution theory is called a scientific theory ? Its  based on the  assumption, we all have a common ancestor. Isn't that pretty much a conclusion , which is not even based on empirical hard facts ? 

Angelo has become a whipping boy...poor guy. But with statements like these, its hard to resist, I suppose.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:In the

latincanuck wrote:

In the end, your fine tune argument, doesn't prove that it is YOUR specific god. 

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

 

The fine tuning argument does  not. But fact, that the universe had a beginning, does correlate with Genesis . The universe had a beginning. How could Moses know that 4000 years ago ? I know, what you think now. But see that :

Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able however to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

 

The fine tuning argument does  not. But fact, that the universe had a beginning, does correlate with Genesis . The universe had a beginning. How could Moses know that 4000 years ago ? I know, what you think now. But see that

I have a broken watch that's right twice a day. Would you like me to mail it to you that you might worship the mystical forces which enshroud this enigmatic timepiece?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

In the end, your fine tune argument, doesn't prove that it is YOUR specific god. 

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

 

The fine tuning argument does  not. But fact, that the universe had a beginning, does correlate with Genesis . The universe had a beginning. How could Moses know that 4000 years ago ? I know, what you think now. But see that :

Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able however to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

Moses didn't write Genesis. More than likely, the Pentateuch was compiled by Ezra much later.

The argument that the universe had a beginning made sense to them as they had seen other things that had a beginning (not a big leap). This is why the static-state model of the universe is out of favor.

It isn't all that surprising that a Jewish editor (Ezra) working with Jewish texts would come to the conclusion that the Jewish/Canaanite god Yahweh made everything.

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:None of the

jcgadfly wrote:

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

None of the point above show reason to believe angelobrazil about his impossible god, let alone how it might have done anything other than be a figment of his imagination.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
 This has degenerated from

 This has degenerated from a debate to a bunch of people kicking a metaphorical puppy.  What this thread needs is more theists so I don't feel like a bully.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Moses didn't

jcgadfly wrote:

Moses didn't write Genesis. More than likely, the Pentateuch was compiled by Ezra much later.

 

Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.

 

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4).

“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words…’ ” (Exodus 34:27).

“Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the Lord” (Numbers 33:2).

“So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests…” (Deuteronomy 31:9).

 Joshua 8:32: “There in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses] had written

2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “

...Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” 

John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17)

With this Paul concurred saying,

“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” Romans 10:5

John 5:46-47  Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” 

jcgadfly wrote:

The argument that the universe had a beginning made sense to them as they had seen other things that had a beginning (not a big leap). This is why the static-state model of the universe is out of favor.

It isn't all that surprising that a Jewish editor (Ezra) working with Jewish texts would come to the conclusion that the Jewish/Canaanite god Yahweh made everything.

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

Plato and Aristoteles thought the universe was eternal. These where the foremost thinkers of their time.

 

They were wrong. So why should someone at that time back think, the universe had a beginning ? that it was created out of nothing ? There was nothing reasonable about that claim. So your argument falls through.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Moses didn't write Genesis. More than likely, the Pentateuch was compiled by Ezra much later.

 

Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.

 

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4).

“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words…’ ” (Exodus 34:27).

“Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the Lord” (Numbers 33:2).

“So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests…” (Deuteronomy 31:9).

 Joshua 8:32: “There in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses] had written

2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “

...Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” 

John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17)

With this Paul concurred saying,

“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” Romans 10:5

John 5:46-47  Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” 

jcgadfly wrote:

The argument that the universe had a beginning made sense to them as they had seen other things that had a beginning (not a big leap). This is why the static-state model of the universe is out of favor.

It isn't all that surprising that a Jewish editor (Ezra) working with Jewish texts would come to the conclusion that the Jewish/Canaanite god Yahweh made everything.

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

Plato and Aristoteles thought the universe was eternal. These where the foremost thinkers of their time.

 

They were wrong. So why should someone at that time back think, the universe had a beginning ? that it was created out of nothing ? There was nothing reasonable about that claim. So your argument falls through.

It was also not uncommon for authors and editors to appropriate the name of a more respected person to their own work. They figured if they listed it under their own name no one would give a rip.

Look up the documentary hypothesis - just humor me.

Do you really mean  to tell me that observing things having a beginning and reading myths and other literature that had similar starting lines (In the beginning) is not a reasonable jump?

Also, creation from nothing stands against scripture. Gen 1:2 - "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Doesn't seem like nothing to me. Looks like god had water to start with - or do you only read the parts of the Bible you like?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3689
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:But fact,

angelobrazil wrote:
But fact, that the universe had a beginning, does correlate with Genesis . The universe had a beginning.

Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. If you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of getting it right. There are at least dozens of other major religions that all say the universe had a beginning.

You have nothing.

angelobrazil wrote:
How could Moses know that 4000 years ago ? I know, what you think now. But see that :

What evidence do you even have that Moses did all these things? No, the Bible doesn't count as evidence until you establish the authority of the Bible. Right now, it has talking animals in it, so everything else that is written is already discredited. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Moses didn't write Genesis. More than likely, the Pentateuch was compiled by Ezra much later.

 

Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.

 

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4).

“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words…’ ” (Exodus 34:27).

“Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the Lord” (Numbers 33:2).

“So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests…” (Deuteronomy 31:9).

 Joshua 8:32: “There in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses] had written

2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “

...Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” 

John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17)

With this Paul concurred saying,

“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” Romans 10:5

John 5:46-47  Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” 

jcgadfly wrote:

 

The argument that the universe had a beginning made sense to them as they had seen other things that had a beginning (not a big leap). This is why the static-state model of the universe is out of favor.

It isn't all that surprising that a Jewish editor (Ezra) working with Jewish texts would come to the conclusion that the Jewish/Canaanite god Yahweh made everything.

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

Plato and Aristoteles thought the universe was eternal. These where the foremost thinkers of their time.

 

They were wrong. So why should someone at that time back think, the universe had a beginning ? that it was created out of nothing ? There was nothing reasonable about that claim. So your argument falls through.

 

Using the Bible to prove its own stories is nothing but a big circle.

 

And geeze...you have a 50/50 shot on guessing, and I have a very hard time believing that the author of Genesis put much thought into the philosophical implications of saying his deity created the universe.  I also doubt they put much thought into the implications of having an anthropomorphic intelligence exist without explaining its own cause.

 

(Edit: I would go even further and say I doubt they even had much concept of what the 'universe' was) 

 

It drives me nuts that you even try to rationalize this stuff.  You get pounded on until your argument fall back on pure faith, "I know I am right because I know I am right" (See previous pages of debate for example), then you climb back up and start rationalizing until you are knocked down again.  The way I see it you have two choices: 1) Just admit that you have faith because you feel you do and quit trying to convince us that the horribly broken Bible makes sense, and stop trying to make it rational or 2 ) Accept that it is not rational, think about what that actually means for your faith and go from there.  

 

What you are doing now is going in a big circle that takes approximately 3 forum pages to start eating its own tail again.  With the exact same results every time.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3689
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Plato and

angelobrazil wrote:

Plato and Aristoteles thought the universe was eternal. These where the foremost thinkers of their time. 

They were wrong. So why should someone at that time back think, the universe had a beginning ? that it was created out of nothing ?

Oh man, that's tough.

I don't know. Maybe because appeal to authority isn't a very good argument? Maybe because people actually disagree on things? (OMG!) Maybe because people might have their own agenda? Maybe they don't listen to everything Plato and Aristotle tells them for no reason? 

If they did, we'd still think that Love existed as a physical entity and that all matter was made of the five elements of air, water, earth, fire, and aether. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Also,

jcgadfly wrote:

Also, creation from nothing stands against scripture. Gen 1:2 - "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Doesn't seem like nothing to me. Looks like god had water to start with - or do you only read the parts of the Bible you like?

 

are you kidding me ? why don't you read the FIRST versicle of the bible ?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Also, creation from nothing stands against scripture. Gen 1:2 - "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Doesn't seem like nothing to me. Looks like god had water to start with - or do you only read the parts of the Bible you like?

 

are you kidding me ? why don't you read the FIRST versicle of the bible ?

You mean the one where Yahweh created the universe while already n the universe? You don't see the contradiction there either, I take it?

The writers needed their creation myth to start somewhere. No one said it needed to make sense.

The main point fir me is that before your god could create the universe, the writers of the Bible had to create him.

But go ahead and keep listening to your preachers.;

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:angelobrazil

mellestad wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Moses didn't write Genesis. More than likely, the Pentateuch was compiled by Ezra much later.

 

Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.

 

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4).

“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words…’ ” (Exodus 34:27).

“Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the Lord” (Numbers 33:2).

“So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests…” (Deuteronomy 31:9).

 Joshua 8:32: “There in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses] had written

2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “

...Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” 

John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17)

With this Paul concurred saying,

“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” Romans 10:5

John 5:46-47  Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” 

jcgadfly wrote:

 

The argument that the universe had a beginning made sense to them as they had seen other things that had a beginning (not a big leap). This is why the static-state model of the universe is out of favor.

It isn't all that surprising that a Jewish editor (Ezra) working with Jewish texts would come to the conclusion that the Jewish/Canaanite god Yahweh made everything.

None of the points above prove that the god you worship did anything or fine-tuned the universe for our insignificant butts.

Plato and Aristoteles thought the universe was eternal. These where the foremost thinkers of their time.

 

They were wrong. So why should someone at that time back think, the universe had a beginning ? that it was created out of nothing ? There was nothing reasonable about that claim. So your argument falls through.

 

Using the Bible to prove its own stories is nothing but a big circle.

 

And geeze...you have a 50/50 shot on guessing, and I have a very hard time believing that the author of Genesis put much thought into the philosophical implications of saying his deity created the universe.  I also doubt they put much thought into the implications of having an anthropomorphic intelligence exist without explaining its own cause.

 

(Edit: I would go even further and say I doubt they even had much concept of what the 'universe' was) 

 

It drives me nuts that you even try to rationalize this stuff.  You get pounded on until your argument fall back on pure faith, "I know I am right because I know I am right" (See previous pages of debate for example), then you climb back up and start rationalizing until you are knocked down again.  The way I see it you have two choices: 1) Just admit that you have faith because you feel you do and quit trying to convince us that the horribly broken Bible makes sense, and stop trying to make it rational or 2 ) Accept that it is not rational, think about what that actually means for your faith and go from there.  

 

What you are doing now is going in a big circle that takes approximately 3 forum pages to start eating its own tail again.  With the exact same results every time.

 

it looks like you are desperate to find a argument at any cost to knock my arguments down, so you come up with that old hat " circular reasoning " . Unfortunately, you have no point here. The fine-tune argument is straight forward as it ever could be, and its the most clear and strong argument for the existence of God. Any explanations given by atheists are to be put to the reign of fairy tales and fantasy . So before starting to critizise the bible , why do you not start first to try to find a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than the onces, given up to now ? Until then, to me it makes MUCH more sense to believe in God. I agree this is not a argument for the existence for the Got of the bible. But why do you not start with this, before critizise the bible : The fine tuning of the universe makes much more sense to be explained, without put a higher intelligence, into the game, because of this and that. If you come up with a better explanation, than God, than we might see if the Bible deserves some credit, or not.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You mean the

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the one where Yahweh created the universe while already n the universe? You don't see the contradiction there either, I take it?

No. I don't. Please show me the contradiction.

1:1 In the beginning1 God2 created3 the heavens and the earth.4

1:2 Now5 the earth6 was without shape and empty,7 and darkness8 was over the surface of the watery deep,9but the Spirit of God10 was moving11 over the surface12 of the water.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the one where Yahweh created the universe while already n the universe? You don't see the contradiction there either, I take it?

No. I don't. Please show me the contradiction.

1:1 In the beginning1 God2 created3 the heavens and the earth.4

1:2 Now5 the earth6 was without shape and empty,7 and darkness8 was over the surface of the watery deep,9but the Spirit of God10 was moving11 over the surface12 of the water.

 

 

How could something enter nowhere? If the universe wasn't created until god created it where did he put it? Things have to put someplace - if God had someplace to  put the heavens and the earth. he couldn't have created it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: it

angelobrazil wrote:

 

it looks like you are desperate to find a argument at any cost to knock my arguments down, so you come up with that old hat " circular reasoning " . Unfortunately, you have no point here. The fine-tune argument is straight forward as it ever could be, and its the most clear and strong argument for the existence of God. Any explanations given by atheists are to be put to the reign of fairy tales and fantasy . So before starting to critizise the bible , why do you not start first to try to find a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, than the onces, given up to now ? Until then, to me it makes MUCH more sense to believe in God. I agree this is not a argument for the existence for the Got of the bible. But why do you not start with this, before critizise the bible : The fine tuning of the universe makes much more sense to be explained, without put a higher intelligence, into the game, because of this and that. If you come up with a better explanation, than God, than we might see if the Bible deserves some credit, or not.

 

Sure.  It is 'fine tuned for life' because if it were not we would not be badgering you.  I don't know what, if anything,  existed before (if the word before even makes sense in that context) the big bang and I don't know why the smallest states of matter behave in the way they do.  But they do happen to behave that way, and so things are the way they are now.

 

I also don't know if there are other ways in which matter could behave that would support life and I don't know if there is a near infinite number of universes in existence.  The fact that both of those questions exist at all means that the fine tuning argument is totally useless, because it means calculating the odds of matter behaving the way it happens to behave are impossible.

 

My statement is honest, and I think the theories that physicists postulate are fascinating.  An atheist does not claim to have all the answers, we claim that, so far, all answers have been found in the natural world and we see no reason to doubt that trend will not continue.  We see one of the greatest scientific mysteries in in the universe as opportunity to gain more knowledge of the world around us.  You see every scientific mystery as 'proof' that your god is a reality.

 

One of us will continue to answer questions, while the other will do nothing but backpedal as those questions are answered.

 

Your argument is simply a logical fallacy:  If we do not have a perfect natural explanation, then the answer must be supernatural.  You literally say in the above paragraph that it makes perfect sense to believe in the supernatural when we do not understand the physical mechanism of a particular thing.  If we followed your logic, human progress would cease overnight.  I flatly reject your attitude towards inquiry.

 

I am not desperate, indeed I am encouraged by how science and reason have methodically disassembled superstitious theistic thought throughout human history.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:How could

jcgadfly wrote:

How could something enter nowhere? If the universe wasn't created until god created it where did he put it? Things have to put someplace - if God had someplace to  put the heavens and the earth. he couldn't have created it.

 

The problem is when you try to make the whole thing rational.  This is a big critique of the Bible: Theists will point to a particular passage, read it literally, then claim it is proof of something.  But then when a non-theist points to an adjacent passage, reads it literally and shows how it runs in direct opposition to rational thought they are doing it wrong.

 

Angel: If you claim the Bible makes specific and rational claims I think that gives us a right to examine the text in a rational way.  You might say he is picking at semantics when he criticizes the wording of the creation story, but you are using the semantics of the creation story to try and prove that Moses had divine knowledge about the physical origin of the universe.

 

If Moses was given divine knowledge the Bible would read less like the oral tradition of violent, superstitious goat herders and more like a textbook of philosophy and science.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Sure.  It

mellestad wrote:

Sure.  It is 'fine tuned for life' because if it were not we would not be badgering you.  I don't know what, if anything,  existed before (if the word before even makes sense in that context) the big bang and I don't know why the smallest states of matter behave in the way they do.  But they do happen to behave that way, and so things are the way they are now.

 

there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ? 

 

 

mellestad wrote:

I also don't know if there are other ways in which matter could behave that would support life and I don't know if there is a near infinite number of universes in existence.  The fact that both of those questions exist at all means that the fine tuning argument is totally useless, because it means calculating the odds of matter behaving the way it happens to behave are impossible..

I've answered that already in this thread.

 

  

mellestad wrote:

My statement is honest, and I think the theories that physicists postulate are fascinating.  An atheist does not claim to have all the answers, we claim that, so far, all answers have been found in the natural world

So , if a atheist has not all answers, how do you claim all answers have been found in the natural world ?

  

mellestad wrote:

and we see no reason to doubt that trend will not continue.

 

I think , the trend will continue, that we will find more and more evidence for design.

Like the fine tuning, and the living Cell. That does evidence a creator. Chance is not a reasonable answer.

 

 

  

mellestad wrote:

One of us will continue to answer questions, while the other will do nothing but backpedal as those questions are answered.  

Shure. Why should the inquiry continue, if the questions are answered ? Science has more questions, that it cannot respond, than ones, that it actually can respond. Scientific discovery brings to the edge , where the scientist must admit : we don't know how the first living cell could arise. We dont know what could have been the cause of the universe. We don't know why the universe is fine tuned....But i say : well : the best and most rational explanation is, its all designed, there is a designer. 

   

mellestad wrote:

Your argument is simply a logical fallacy:  If we do not have a perfect natural explanation, then the answer must be supernatural.  

and why  is that a logical fallacy ? 

 

mellestad wrote:

 You literally say in the above paragraph that it makes perfect sense to believe in the supernatural when we do not understand the physical mechanism of a particular thing.  If we followed your logic, human progress would cease overnight.  I flatly reject your attitude towards inquiry.  

No sir. I say, Got is the best explanation , because we know the physical constants , and fine-tuning.

  

mellestad wrote:

I am not desperate, indeed I am encouraged by how science and reason have methodically disassembled superstitious theistic thought throughout human history.

In my opinion, quit the oposit is the case. Science has discovered more and more data and facts, that evidence a creator, a designer.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Claiming the amazingly

Claiming the amazingly accurate guess that the Universe had a beginning is somehow proof that the writers had access to some sort of divine source of knowledge collapses immediately you continue reading, since they got almost everything else wrong.

Even claiming that 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth', doesn't fit with solidly established theories, since the Earth didn't form until about 10 billion years after the Big Bang, and after the Sun. Plus water was not present in liquid form on or around the Earth until much later than that, after it had cooled a lot, and the waters never 'gathered into one place'. There was no 'deep' at the beginning of the Earth, not to mention that the Earth would never have been in total darkness.

Genesis is clear proof that the writers had no access to real knowledge about the origin of the Universe, the Sun, Earth, and life.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Claiming

BobSpence1 wrote:

Claiming the amazingly accurate guess that the Universe had a beginning is somehow proof that the writers had access to some sort of divine source of knowledge collapses immediately you continue reading, since they got almost everything else wrong.

Even claiming that 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth', doesn't fit with solidly established theories, since the Earth didn't form until about 10 billion years after the Big Bang, and after the Sun. Plus water was not present in liquid form on or around the Earth until much later than that, after it had cooled a lot, and the waters never 'gathered into one place'. There was no 'deep' at the beginning of the Earth, not to mention that the Earth would never have been in total darkness.

Genesis is clear proof that the writers had no access to real knowledge about the origin of the Universe, the Sun, Earth, and life.

 

you mention a series of  issues, that cannot be bespoken in a few words......i have  not yet a personal opinion of which explanation is more compelling, old or young earth interpretation of genesis. 

 

http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/page2.html


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: there

angelobrazil wrote:

 

there we return to that question : why is there something, rather than nothing ? what do you think ?

 Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't know and you don't either. Unfortunately, "I don't know" is an answer that scares you so you posit a magic man to keep you from thinking.

 

angelobrazil wrote:
I've answered that already in this thread.

 If you had we wouldn't keep asking.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

I think , the trend will continue, that we will find more and more evidence for design.

Like the fine tuning, and the living Cell. That does evidence a creator. Chance is not a reasonable answer.

You are correct - chance is not a reasonable answer. That's why no one here has given chance as an answer. Natural selection is not chance. Magic isn't an answer either.

 

angelobrazil wrote:
Why should the inquiry continue, if the questions are answered ? Science has more questions, that it cannot respond, than ones, that it actually can respond. Scientific discovery brings to the edge , where the scientist must admit : we don't know how the first living cell could arise. We dont know what could have been the cause of the universe. We don't know why the universe is fine tuned....But i say : well : the best and most rational explanation is, its all designed, there is a designer.

Magic is not a rational answer. The universe is not fine tuned (The universe, the earth and our bodies are poorly designed - life has adapted to deal with the incompetence of the designer.) If there is a designer, what proof do you have that it's your god (besides the goatherder myths).

 

mellestad wrote:

Your argument is simply a logical fallacy:  If we do not have a perfect natural explanation, then the answer must be supernatural.  

angelobrazil wrote:
and why  is that a logical fallacy ?

It's an argument from ignorance. Basically, you're saying "I don't know so god did it".

 

angelobrazil wrote:
No sir. I say, God is the best explanation , because we know the physical constants , and fine-tuning.

Magic isn't an explanation. The universe is not fine-tuned.

  

mellestad wrote:

I am not desperate, indeed I am encouraged by how science and reason have methodically disassembled superstitious theistic thought throughout human history.

angelobrazil wrote:
In my opinion, quit the oposit is the case. Science has discovered more and more data and facts, that evidence a creator, a designer.

And you can't produce a single peer-reviewed journal that provides that evidence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatever you may try and

Whatever you may try and argue from the FTA, the more we study life on this Earth the more we see the gross imperfections of its design - many aspects of our own biology, from our propensity for cancer, and the many imperfections of our genetics and reproductive processes which lead to about 120000 babies born with serious birth defects in the US alone.

This in understandable in the context of evolution, where there has to be a path through intermediate viable steps for any 'design' to be reachable through evolutionary processes. It is also understandable in that evolution has no built-in 'drive' for perfection in any sense, just in maximizing relative reproductive success.

It is hard to explain why an all-powerful benevolent God would be such a sloppy designer, since He could clearly avoid the limitations of Natural Selection. If he can 'fine-tune' the parameters of physical laws, why can he not do something similar for the design of our bodies and brains??

I know the standard answer from Abrahamic religions is that our imperfections are punishment for 'original sin', and from Buddhists that it is punishment for wrongs committed in a past life, which are both just attempts to justify this glaring anomaly in the picture of a 'just' Universe or governing Power.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: The

angelobrazil wrote:

 

The fine tuning argument does  not. But fact, that the universe had a beginning, does correlate with Genesis . The universe had a beginning. How could Moses know that 4000 years ago ? I know, what you think now. But see that :

Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able however to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

Tell me how the hindu version is not true? It states that the universe had a beginning and that the emptiness was filled with energy. Wow look big bang theory tells us the energy was released from a single point how could the Hindu wise men know this 5000 years ago?, it must be that the hindu gods are the true gods not your imaginary god. Practically all myths of creation, including yours have that the universe has a beginning. Why is that, because most things do, like all stories they have a beginning, like all things they have a beginning, a tree begins as a seed, a human begins as a baby, morning begins with the sunrise, etc, etc, etc, so it's not nearly a stretch for someone to believe that the earth also had a beginning or the universe. The fact that the rest of creation of genesis is wrong, pretty much rules it out.  With that said, show me the evidence that proves it HAS TO BE ONLY YOUR GOD, that if the universe is created that your god and ONLY your god is the only possibility.  Your fine tuned universe does not prove your god. Shit the argument doesn't even prove it's designed since there are other explanations and possibilities your reject (not refute or debunked, just dismiss) So far you have failed to show that it's rational to believe your god did all of this. Even worse you have shown irrational decision making when you simply dismiss all the other possibilities and continue to believe in that your god is the only possibilities without any evidence to back up your claims.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You notice the glaring

You notice the glaring inconsistency of angelo in trying to use the findings of Science to find justification for the Christian God, then is not prepared to acknowledge that Genesis is mostly quite inconsistent with well-established science, even suggesting that a young earth may be a legitimate answer, something that is totally at odds with all relevant Science.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology