Something did not come from nothing

Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Something did not come from nothing

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2564

The Invisible Ocean
 An Atehist's answer to philosophically based religions, Deists, and Agnostics.

Matter is eternal. The big Bang is the start of measurable time only but not existence.

Face it the world and all life on it was not created in six or seven days by a magical being. People may agree or disagree with this; some may believe in a personal god or conventional god. As for the people who literally believe in magical gardens, my words are lost on you and you need not read any further.  


          Conventional gods are easily dismissed with a little bit of history or science. After all, Gods come and go from Set and Sin to Zeus and Athena, to Apollo, to Allah, and Yahweh. Religions come, reform, and eventually die. There have been many religions made up through out the world, some are large and popular like Islam, and some are always small like the Tao.


          Organized religoins do not go very far with even a drop of skepticism or critical thinking. They must rely heavily on faith because there is no other way to convince people with reason how they could possibly be true.  One with an open mind, does not have to look far to see the inconsistencies, tragedies, mistakes, shortcomings, and often laughable absurdities in each. 


        Most people claim to be a 'such and such', but with a little questioning one discovers that they actually have a personalized god that they reformed from the religion they were brought up to believe. For example a lot of Catholics I know are actually Protestants because they don’t believe in the Pope. They merely call themselves Catholics because that’s what their parents told them they were. Apparently they didn’t give it much thought. Likewise most Protestants can not even tell you what separates their sect from another Protestant sect. Sure some can, but it is still interesting how little investigation goes into religious thought for many. 


Some people may reject specific texts but maintain that something IS out there and that religions are all just worshiping the same thing under different titles. A huge hole in this argument is that not all religions have a god(s). Plus, after enough reduction aren't you really a Deist rather than part of a particular creed? This brings us to personalized gods.


           What about the personalized gods? These gods or even forces seem to be born out of philosophies or seemingly logical deductions. These gods and their arguments are then too often kidnapped by the conventional religion promoters. These kinds of religions based on philosophy rather than on fear or dogmatism are far more respectable than the more fairytale like fantasies. It is important then to have a discussion to address these more moderate religious beliefs. So let’s look at one of the puzzles that seems to get a lot of people, even the agnostics.


          The age old question, “Where did it/we all come from?” People think, that there had to be a beginning to matter and since (they assume) it all had to come from somewhere, and there must be a kind of god that 'Made' everything. So god must be real. For the god-thing it is acceptable to not have a start b/c it is somehow magic and above that rule. I think everyone may have asked and answered this question of themselves when they were a young child. There a few things wrong with this.


          Well, "Where did it/we all come from?"  (Why would it have to come from anything) Within this question are two assumed truths, that being had to come from something rather than being that something. And that nothingness existed at some point, because anything that is not nothing is something.


        Now, why is nothingness assumed as the default setting? Is it because religious texts say 'in the beginning all was void'? Somethingness and nothingness do not have to come from each other. (in fact they logically could not) Each has equal claim to always being. In fact, because one can not come from the other, existence has always been. One can ask, where does nothingness come from? People seem to think that nothingness doesn't have to come from anything, that it just always is. But is it not equally as reasonable to ask how nothingness was made from somethingness, as it is to ask the reverse?


         What one can question is the assumption of a nothingness. An old Taoist saying goes, "Fish do not know they are in the water." Humans do not see space as a thing (out side of a fabric for motion and an area for gravity) but it is very possible that nowhere is there nothing. The words on this screen have space between them but there is still the screen. Space is like the grid we are all subject to. The Higgs field particle is on its way if predictions are correct, we are about to discover our own invisible ocean.


         For somthingness to come from a previous something, the previous something would be part of the continued existence of existence thus just as nothingness does not come from nothingness, nothingness just is, somethingness does not have to come from something it just is as well. The difference and the confusion lies in that somethingness can change. As a 'new' something comes from a previous something, this is a measure of change we call this time. Existence does not ‘come from’ existence; existence is what is, it is being. Time is a measure of change within the being but not a measure of being itself. All measurements are parts of infinity, like all numbers are parts of a possible infinity. Nothingness simply remains nothing and somethingness, though it can change, always remains not nothing i.e. somethingness. Therefore you either believe in the eternity of nothingness or somethingness or both. Unless you make up a god and say it made either the nothing or the something, but even a god can not have neither. The god idea however is not necessary, at least not for that reason. The only religion around it might be Pantheism which holds that the somethingness is god. But to be realistic my audience is mainly moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


          “What about the big bang? What came ‘before’ the big bang?” This is another typical question and a reasonable question too. Again the word before implies time and we know now, in large part because of Einstein, that time is a physical thing, (much like motion is physical-esk. Motion is a movement, but there still must be a thing doing the moving.) Before this physical universe moved, our reality and time were not. (Unless there is a multiverse which is a different can of worms. Smiling To ask "what came before?" implies again the English languages obsession with location metaphores, 'going to' and 'coming from'. There is no 'Before' until there is time. There is also no coming in the coming before since this in fact would be the start. The start is the start, if you keep gong back you just get a new start, but it is still the start and there is no 'coming' before it,  there is not even a 'before'. It was also never nothing. Time does not really Exist. Capital E on exist. Time is a concept of our memories.


    The past is not real, that is, it does not exist, only our memories exist. This moment, right now, is all that is actual. The present is eternal in existence. Time does not exist outside of existence. Time is the measure of change in objects from one point in the now to another point in the now. But really, time is some concept out of the memory. Time applies to changes but not to existence. For every action there is a thing doing the act. The action cannot predate the things. There is no time until there is existence. There are no changes until there are things to be changing. So you see there is no such thing as before existence if it has always been. It's like saying what was nothing before it was nothing. The answer is simply still nothing. So the answer what was before the big bang? Well everything was. "What was everything doing?" Is a better question. When you say the word was do you mean what happend i.e. events or what existed i.e. subjects. And there can be no events without subjects. So there is no before existence.


        That’s one answer and it does not even require a bigbang. Now, folks in the M-theory camp can give you yet another explanation, the question is, is M-theory even still science or philosophy? Wait, was not science once called natural philosophy? Newton did not call what he did science, but philosophy. Is science not lead by imagination, by science fiction, by philosophies, and then later 'proven' (within a paradigm) by the most current empirical data? The history of our future is a philosophy of the past.

And there was light...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Angelo, your blatant failure

Angelo, your blatant failure to actually address many of the points I made in my arguments against your claims, suggests that you either have no counter, or are grossly lacking in reading comprehension, understanding, etc.

The responses you have made show poor understanding of the relevant science.

You have been rebutted. You appear to be just unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge that, and all your ad homs about Atheists, and naked assertions about that lame, illogical concept called "god' will change that.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 HAHAHAHAHA it's still information on a physical medium that is recorded on to a physical medium, which does not exist without that physical medium

why should a unbodied mind not be possible to exist ? you still need to answer my question....

 

I'll assume a 'mind' means something that thinks and thinking requires change and change requires matter.  The concept of a mind without matter isn't coherent.  Even if you go for some sort of omni-mind that exists outside of time and therefore doesn't actually change, but instead thinks everything it will ever think at once (and if I grant the sentence I just wrote makes sense) then we're still stuck because information can't exist without matter so the unmaterial mind wouldn't even be able to store that data.

The assumption that immaterial minds can even exist isn't based on anything we've ever observed about reality.

 

I'm not reading this whole thread though, if this has been over a million times, nevermind Smiling

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Theism has no basis

Quote:
Theism has no basis for any sort of real morality, merely a set of edicts claimed to the words of an imagined being.

If God exists, and he is the creator of mankind, then he is in power to set the rules and objective moral values, to say what is right, what is wrong. If he does not exist, anything is aloud, no God
will ever punish evil, and reward goodness.

Quote:
Even if some super-entity exists, there is no way we could know anything with certainty what its ultimate motives are with respect to us

unless God reveals his objectives to us. What i believe he has done.

Quote:
Whereas secular morality is based on our collective consensus of what causes us pain or distress of any kind.

But objective moral values do not exist. The moral of PolPot , Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, is as much valid as Mother Theresas , etc. No real difference at all.

Quote:
Sensitivity to the desires and problems of others clearly evolved as a strong bonding mechanism to keep our group together, since in our original state we were no match as individuals to the predators around us, and cooperation allowed us to enhance our situation a great deal. As it still does.

So why do we feel guilt, and animals do not ?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Theism has no basis for any sort of real morality, merely a set of edicts claimed to the words of an imagined being.
If God exists, and he is the creator of mankind, then he is in power to set the rules and objective moral values, to say what is right, what is wrong. If he does not exist, anything is aloud, no God will ever punish evil, and reward goodness.
Quote:
Even if some super-entity exists, there is no way we could know anything with certainty what its ultimate motives are with respect to us
unless God reveals his objectives to us. What i believe he has done.
Quote:
Whereas secular morality is based on our collective consensus of what causes us pain or distress of any kind.
But objective moral values do not exist. The moral of PolPot , Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, is as much valid as Mother Theresas , etc. No real difference at all.
Quote:
Sensitivity to the desires and problems of others clearly evolved as a strong bonding mechanism to keep our group together, since in our original state we were no match as individuals to the predators around us, and cooperation allowed us to enhance our situation a great deal. As it still does.
So why do we feel guilt, and animals do not ?
There is evidence that some animals feel remorse and guilt (primates).  The idea of good health is a flexible but objective one. So is well being. It's hypothetical opposite is a world where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible.  We want to move away from that to wel lbeing. Anything that reduces pain and suffering in the world is good.  This is more moral than theism for one does the good for the sake of the good instead of obedience  to an autocratic god like polpot that you obey for fear and threats of eternal torture for stealing a cookie as a child.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Theism has no basis for any sort of real morality, merely a set of edicts claimed to the words of an imagined being.
If God exists, and he is the creator of mankind, then he is in power to set the rules and objective moral values, to say what is right, what is wrong. If he does not exist, anything is aloud, no God will ever punish evil, and reward goodness.
Quote:
Even if some super-entity exists, there is no way we could know anything with certainty what its ultimate motives are with respect to us
unless God reveals his objectives to us. What i believe he has done.
Quote:
Whereas secular morality is based on our collective consensus of what causes us pain or distress of any kind.
But objective moral values do not exist. The moral of PolPot , Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, is as much valid as Mother Theresas , etc. No real difference at all.
Quote:
Sensitivity to the desires and problems of others clearly evolved as a strong bonding mechanism to keep our group together, since in our original state we were no match as individuals to the predators around us, and cooperation allowed us to enhance our situation a great deal. As it still does.
So why do we feel guilt, and animals do not ?
There is evidence that some animals feel remorse and guilt (primates).  The idea of good health is a flexible but objective one. So is well being. It's hypothetical opposite is a world where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible.  We want to move away from that to wel lbeing. Anything that reduces pain and suffering in the world is good.  This is more moral than theism for one does the good for the sake of the good instead of obedience  to an autocratic god like polpot that you obey for fear and threats of eternal torture for stealing a cookie as a child.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If there is a

Quote:
If there is a Metaverse within which the Big Bang, or multiple BB's occurred, there is no reason whatever to claim that ALL energy is within the Big Bang Universe.

that does not change the fact, that energy cannot be eternal.

Quote:
The energy within the our Universe is currently seen to be of both positive and negative nature, where the energy associated with gravity is considered as negative, ie complementary to the energy associated with the other forces and matter particles, such that the net energy content of the Universe is precisely zero, so its emergence from the Singularity does not violate any Thermodynamic Laws. This process means also that the entropy state of the matter/energy of this Universe is not dependent in any sense on that of any Metaverse, or whatever may exist in some larger context of reality - The Second Law simply requires that the total entropy of the Universe can only increase.

that still does not change the fact, that if energy would exist eternally, we would be in a state of heat death.

Quote:
Any pre-existing state of minimum energy/maximum entropy could exist indefinitely in that state, and would not preclude the spontaneous 'budding-off' of singularities leading to Big Bangs. No principles of Physics are violated in this scenario.

As Stephen Hawking recently acknowledged, God is unnecessary. Are you claiming to understand Physics and Cosmology better than Hawking, or Stephen Weinberg, et al?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8401

So the question is, why did the universe begin to exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top down” approach to this question. The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present state. The most probable history represents the history of our observable universe. Hawking and Mlodinow claim that “in this view, the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing” (p. 136). By “spontaneously” they seem to mean without a cause.

But how does that follow from the model? The top down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe given the no boundary condition. The top down approach doesn’t calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should hold but takes it for granted. Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary. If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration. For nothingness, or non-being, has no properties or constraints and is governed by no physical laws. Physics only begins at the “South Pole” in the no boundary model. There isn’t anything in the model that implies that that point came to be without a cause. Indeed, the idea that being could arise without a cause from non-being seems metaphysically absurd.

Hawking and Mlodinow seem to realize that they have not yet answered the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” for they return to this question in their concluding chapter and give a quite different answer. There they explain that there is a constant vacuum energy contained in empty space, and if the universe’s positive energy associated with matter is evenly balanced by the negative energy associated with gravitation, then the universe can spontaneously come into being as a fluctuation of the energy in the vacuum (which, by a clever sleight of hand, they say “we may as well call . . . zero”). This seems to be a very different account of the universe’s origin, for it presupposes the reality of space and the energy in it. So it’s puzzling when Mlodinow and Hawking conclude, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6” (p. 180). Here it is said that the nothingness spoken of in Chapter 6 is not really nothingness after all but is space filled with vacuum energy! That goes to reinforce the conviction that the no boundary approach only describes the evolution of our universe from its origin at its “South Pole” to its present state but is silent as to why the universe came to exist in the first place.

What this implies is that Hawking and Mlodinow have not even begun to address the philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For “nothing” in their vocabulary does not have the traditional meaning “non-being” but rather means “the quantum vacuum.” They aren’t even answering the same question. Like the philosophy student who, put the question, “What is Time?” on his final exam, answered, “a weekly news magazine,” so Hawking and Mlodinow have avoided the tough question by equivocation.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:Who

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Who gave you that nonsensical notion? 1- There's no 'case' for atheism. It's not a 'movement'. It's a state of mind called 'Skepticism'. 2- Skepticism is the position one 'abandons', in order to 'adopt' a belief. You've been grossly mislead, and you have problems comprehending your own position, and how you deviated from Skepticism . The question isn't why 'atheism', it is why 'any other position'.
how about you learn to define the terms of your own row ? there exist weak atheist, which simply do disbelief that any God exists strong atheists, which do claim, God does not exist and agnostics/skeptics, which are on the sideline. Which have not made up their minds so far. My understanding is that i am debating strong atheists here.
Your side does the naming. There is no azeusists, a-venus's, a-yahwehist, We simply think the same way about your god as we do zeus , mars, Krsna and whatever.  It's like asking are you vegan or vegetarian. Does omnivore really describe what you eat.  We are not a belief system.  We do not have a strong common set of beliefs. We agree that we do not see a reason for a god. We typically see it like other beliefs in Oden, Thor, Jupiter. Yahweh or Elohim is just another primitive belief system that continues to exist like many other superstitions and myths... Brahman, Allah, Krshna, Santa Claus, Zorastrianism, Jesus, Buddha, Yeti, UFO's, Elvis, Dragons, elves, fairies, ghosts....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: Quote:If

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
If there is a Metaverse within which the Big Bang, or multiple BB's occurred, there is no reason whatever to claim that ALL energy is within the Big Bang Universe.
that does not change the fact, that energy cannot be eternal.
Quote:
The energy within the our Universe is currently seen to be of both positive and negative nature, where the energy associated with gravity is considered as negative, ie complementary to the energy associated with the other forces and matter particles, such that the net energy content of the Universe is precisely zero, so its emergence from the Singularity does not violate any Thermodynamic Laws. This process means also that the entropy state of the matter/energy of this Universe is not dependent in any sense on that of any Metaverse, or whatever may exist in some larger context of reality - The Second Law simply requires that the total entropy of the Universe can only increase.
that still does not change the fact, that if energy would exist eternally, we would be in a state of heat death.
Quote:
Any pre-existing state of minimum energy/maximum entropy could exist indefinitely in that state, and would not preclude the spontaneous 'budding-off' of singularities leading to Big Bangs. No principles of Physics are violated in this scenario. As Stephen Hawking recently acknowledged, God is unnecessary. Are you claiming to understand Physics and Cosmology better than Hawking, or Stephen Weinberg, et al?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8401 So the question is, why did the universe begin to exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top down” approach to this question. The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present state. The most probable history represents the history of our observable universe. Hawking and Mlodinow claim that “in this view, the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing” (p. 136). By “spontaneously” they seem to mean without a cause. But how does that follow from the model? The top down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe given the no boundary condition. The top down approach doesn’t calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should hold but takes it for granted. Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary. If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration. For nothingness, or non-being, has no properties or constraints and is governed by no physical laws. Physics only begins at the “South Pole” in the no boundary model. There isn’t anything in the model that implies that that point came to be without a cause. Indeed, the idea that being could arise without a cause from non-being seems metaphysically absurd. Hawking and Mlodinow seem to realize that they have not yet answered the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” for they return to this question in their concluding chapter and give a quite different answer. There they explain that there is a constant vacuum energy contained in empty space, and if the universe’s positive energy associated with matter is evenly balanced by the negative energy associated with gravitation, then the universe can spontaneously come into being as a fluctuation of the energy in the vacuum (which, by a clever sleight of hand, they say “we may as well call . . . zero&rdquoEye-wink. This seems to be a very different account of the universe’s origin, for it presupposes the reality of space and the energy in it. So it’s puzzling when Mlodinow and Hawking conclude, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6” (p. 180). Here it is said that the nothingness spoken of in Chapter 6 is not really nothingness after all but is space filled with vacuum energy! That goes to reinforce the conviction that the no boundary approach only describes the evolution of our universe from its origin at its “South Pole” to its present state but is silent as to why the universe came to exist in the first place. What this implies is that Hawking and Mlodinow have not even begun to address the philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For “nothing” in their vocabulary does not have the traditional meaning “non-being” but rather means “the quantum vacuum.” They aren’t even answering the same question. Like the philosophy student who, put the question, “What is Time?” on his final exam, answered, “a weekly news magazine,” so Hawking and Mlodinow have avoided the tough question by equivocation.
What Bob is saying with the multiverse scenario there always was the source in which bib bangs are boiling out eternally. Our big bang is but one. There was no beginning. It is an eternally uncaused cause.  Entropy would be in each of the subsets of the universe but there would be ever new big bangs....There are a number of hypotheses... that is science... get use to it. Something can come from nothing.  But nothing will come of this.   I think that I am done here ...seems little true dialogue happening here. 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:

Theism has no basis for any sort of real morality, merely a set of edicts claimed to the words of an imagined being.

If God exists, and he is the creator of mankind, then he is in power to set the rules and objective moral values, to say what is right, what is wrong.

Morality is not about simple rules, it is about quide-lines on how to act toward others, based on a group concensus.

Your model is the one that is consistent with a Hitler, who commanded all sorts of horrific things, and they simply had to be obeyed, because he was in the postion of power, like your God.

Quote:

If he does not exist, anything is aloud, no God will ever punish evil, and reward goodness.

Then we are only constrained by our need to live in a society, with other people, to encourage them to be friendly toward us, rather than angry and aggressive.

And we are relieved of the burden of guilt for 'sins' which cause no real harm to anyone.

Or worse , we are not inspired by an imagined need to assist God by punishing those we have come to see as evil for no good reason apart from the writings by a bunch of tribesman living thousands of years ago, who incorporated their beliefs and moral ideas and primitive superstitions and taboos in those writings.

Quote:
Quote:

Even if some super-entity exists, there is no way we could know anything with certainty what its ultimate motives are with respect to us
unless God reveals his objectives to us. What i believe he has done.
Quote:
Whereas secular morality is based on our collective consensus of what causes us pain or distress of any kind.
But objective moral values do not exist. The moral of PolPot , Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, is as much valid as Mother Theresas , etc. No real difference at all.
Quote:
Sensitivity to the desires and problems of others clearly evolved as a strong bonding mechanism to keep our group together, since in our original state we were no match as individuals to the predators around us, and cooperation allowed us to enhance our situation a great deal. As it still does.
So why do we feel guilt, and animals do not ?

Secular morality is not dependent on 'objective' moral values.

It is based on our empathy for others, and our need/preference to live in relative harmony with other people.

The difference is that a Hitler, a Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Yahweh, God, Allah, base their idea of right as 'obey me or else', 'I am the boss, you are not allowed to question my orders, on pain of death'.

It also believes that punishment, where administered, should be immediate and proportionate, unlike God.

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
Quote:Angelo, your blatant

Quote:
Angelo, your blatant failure to actually address many of the points I made in my arguments against your claims, suggests that you either have no counter, or are grossly lacking in reading comprehension, understanding, etc.

The responses you have made show poor understanding of the relevant science.

You have been rebutted. You appear to be just unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge that, and all your ad homs about Atheists, and naked assertions about that lame, illogical concept called "god' will change that.

the presented facts speak for themself. I don't need to sing victory, as it seems you think you need to do. I have adressed each point you made. Your assertion i have not, evidences you are dishonest.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'll assume a 'mind'

Quote:
I'll assume a 'mind' means something that thinks and thinking requires change and change requires matter.

there is no matter in a vaccum. but its state can change. Or not ?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You and your cult (no matter how many millions) are insignificant, to real/not real.
your atheism is either.

So what's the problem?

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
So, your personal thoughts, or personal opinions are useless.

well, it depends. if my personal thoughts, if my faith reflects the truth, than it is indeed relevant.

Not to me.

Is that a problem for you?

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You don't have a 'say', in what it 'is'.

 

well, actually i think yes, i have a say to say what it is.

Reality doesn't appear to have a conscience.

Is that a problem for you?

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
We are teaching you, and at the same time, nullifying your objections, and your attempt to spread disinformation.
how about its not the other way around ?

Because 'A hole in 1' is sufficient proof, to support that the most improbable and unlikely events, can and do happen.

It's a well known FACT.

angelobrazil wrote:
how are you so sure, your atheism is a epic fail , God does indeed exist ?

I'm skeptical.

I have every reason in the world to be.

Is that a problem for you?

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
No matter how unlikely something may be, if it HAS happened, it's odds where 1 in 1.

your argument isnt new to me . And its flaw is obvious :

Oooo, goody! I sense some EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC META ANALYSIS  from the Christian Scholars is imminent

 

angelobrazil wrote:
  Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event

That's the EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC META ANALYSIS  from the Christian Scholars counter argument for the origins of the universe??????????????

 

Naked assertion. Presupposition.

 

I would NOT try and deduce further than "A hole in 1", or 'An accident'. Because they happen all the time.

You might believe otherwise, but, like I pointed out earlier, you are insignificant. Your beliefs are insignificant. Shit happens.

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 which was too improbable to happen by chance.

Logical fallacy. See : 'Shit happens' for a detailed explantion.

angelobrazil wrote:
 Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan .... In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason

Wow!!

That's PURE science right there!!

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident."

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 "So we should conclude the same with the cosmos.

 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God." .

 

Fuck are you people certifiably stoopid...

 

You just lost 130 IQ points with that brilliant fucking move, you moron.

What's next?

Noah's Ark?

The Stork?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Who tells you, Hitler

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
I'll assume a 'mind' means something that thinks and thinking requires change and change requires matter.
there is no matter in a vaccum. but its state can change. Or not ?

 

If you are going somewhere with this, just spit it out, please and save us both the time.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Angelo, your blatant failure to actually address many of the points I made in my arguments against your claims, suggests that you either have no counter, or are grossly lacking in reading comprehension, understanding, etc. The responses you have made show poor understanding of the relevant science. You have been rebutted. You appear to be just unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge that, and all your ad homs about Atheists, and naked assertions about that lame, illogical concept called "god' will change that.
the presented facts speak for themself. I don't need to sing victory, as it seems you think you need to do. I have adressed each point you made. Your assertion i have not, evidences you are dishonest.
You are so full of it sonny. Grow up.  You show exactly the type of morality in Christianity I am concerned about.  Kinda take after your autocratic god.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Angelo, your blatant failure to actually address many of the points I made in my arguments against your claims, suggests that you either have no counter, or are grossly lacking in reading comprehension, understanding, etc. The responses you have made show poor understanding of the relevant science. You have been rebutted. You appear to be just unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge that, and all your ad homs about Atheists, and naked assertions about that lame, illogical concept called "god' will change that.
the presented facts speak for themself. I don't need to sing victory, as it seems you think you need to do. I have adressed each point you made. Your assertion i have not, evidences you are dishonest.

You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example.

This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: Who

angelobrazil wrote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews 

I do, you fucking moron.

He did not kill in self defense.

 

Epic FUCKING fail!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Angelo, your blatant failure to actually address many of the points I made in my arguments against your claims, suggests that you either have no counter, or are grossly lacking in reading comprehension, understanding, etc. The responses you have made show poor understanding of the relevant science. You have been rebutted. You appear to be just unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge that, and all your ad homs about Atheists, and naked assertions about that lame, illogical concept called "god' will change that.
the presented facts speak for themself. I don't need to sing victory, as it seems you think you need to do. I have adressed each point you made. Your assertion i have not, evidences you are dishonest.

You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example.

This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.

Theism seriously as a practiced belief is a psychological dysfunction...delusional.  If you use it to interpret and respond to events in the real world you have non-realisit results. I do this because there is god x so... expecting result y.....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: So the

angelobrazil wrote:
So the question is, why did the universe begin to exist?

Why not?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
This guy is a copy/paste

This guy is a copy/paste troll.

The formatting of his posts is all eff'd up.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, what did I tell you

Brian37, what did I tell you about Godwin's Law...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:angelobrazil

redneF wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews 

I do, you fucking moron.

He did not kill in self defense.

 

Epic FUCKING fail!

But he also truely thought he was bringing Germany out of the disgrace he falsely thought the rest of the world put Germany in, so in that flawed logic he thought he was doing the right thing.

You can do bad things and wrong things thinking your logic is good falsely thinking it was right.

It was not self defense, it was a "defense of honor". The same flawed logic that have lead humans throughout history to lead others to "defend honor" by taking power over others.

If you "put someone in their place" they wont disrespect you. Hitler was trying to make the world respect Germany.

Once the abused becomes the abuser. Germans felt abused and Hitler gave them a false sense of dignity. That bad logic lead them to do what they thought was right.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Your "argument" is question

Your "argument" is question begging + equivocation + ignorance of science. Fin.

I am awaiting a reply to post #99.

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:TGBaker

angelobrazil wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

   You obscene theist. You kiss ya mam with that mouth. 

 

 

i don't debate with atheists, that are not strong enough to debate my arguments. instead they think they need to attack me......

What's the altitude limit for your ego?

WE are not attacking you, we are attacking your claims. If you are going to take things personally, you really should not be here.

We most certainly are strong enough to debate your arguments. The fact that you have not been banned after 1 post should tell you we are not screaming little babies who cant handle hearing things we don't agree with.

You believe in a god.

We we say, "Bullshit"

So? If we really hated you for believing we wouldn't just stick to "bullshit", we'd slam planes into buildings like Muslims or blow up abortion doctors like Christians.

Since we are not out to kill you or rape your women, I would suggest YOU focus more on your own arguments and back them up, rather than complain about our word choices.

We are NOT concerned with what you claim is true, we are concerned with the evidence for what you claim is true.

If you are going to take things personally you are going to be miserable here. Don't subject yourself to this if you don't want to. But don't complain about being here when no one forced you to be here.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:Who

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Who gave you that nonsensical notion? 1- There's no 'case' for atheism. It's not a 'movement'. It's a state of mind called 'Skepticism'. 2- Skepticism is the position one 'abandons', in order to 'adopt' a belief. You've been grossly mislead, and you have problems comprehending your own position, and how you deviated from Skepticism . The question isn't why 'atheism', it is why 'any other position'.
how about you learn to define the terms of your own row ? there exist weak atheist, which simply do disbelief that any God exists strong atheists, which do claim, God does not exist and agnostics/skeptics, which are on the sideline. Which have not made up their minds so far. My understanding is that i am debating strong atheists here.

What you don't understand is that you are also a strong atheist, since you do not adopt the other gods that are popular.

You are just 1 god away from graduating to 'Full Atheist'.

 

You may/may not ever get your degree, in Skepticism.

 

You most likely won't when you keep feeding your brain with junk science, pseudo intellectual BS, and logical fallacies.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
I'll assume a 'mind' means something that thinks and thinking requires change and change requires matter.
there is no matter in a vaccum. but its state can change. Or not ?

If there is no energy, there is nothing.

If there is energy, it can change state, as in the energy of a field of some kind. But all forms of energy are dependent on matter particles in some way.

The main forms that manifest outside the nucleus are electromagnetic energy and gravity.

Electromagnetic energy, if static, has to be associated with matter particles (electron or proton), or be travelling at the speed of light across the space, having been emitted by a matter particle event.

Gravity is also intimately associated with matter.

So a totally matter-free realm would be a static void.

Being 'immaterial' is severely limiting. You can't do nuttin'. Matter rules!

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no way to

There is no way to distinguish with our finite, imperfect minds, a 'real' revelation from God from a figment of our imagination.

We also cannot know whether God is deceiving us or, not, so even if we had a 'real' revelation, we still would have no way to know whether we 'should' accept it, apart from the implied threat that if we don't, we are gonna burn in Hell.

Acceptance of the idea that there is an incredibly powerful super-being behind and over everything implies we can never know anything with certainty, as such a being could change anything or everything at any instant, for totally unfathomable 'reasons'.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So a

BobSpence1 wrote:

So a totally matter-free realm would be a static void.

Being 'immaterial' is severely limiting. You can't do nuttin'. Matter rules!

Like I said in the other thread, they're trying to assert that there is a thing, which is not made of anything (and BTW, it's male, even though it doesn't have a penis), having a mind without a brain, could magically bend spoons, with it's mind.....but chose to make the entire universe instead, and 'superfine tuned' it to support us, for a short while, so that some of the spirits inhabiting these meat suits (we call human bodies) can come back to 'it' in the land of 'nothing', for all eternity.

Ya, that's not improbable, or unlikely to be...

The odds of that being 'true' are rumoured to be 1 in 1.

 

I have no sound reason to be skeptical of something like that.

It makes perfect sense...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Try asking them what a soul

Try asking them what a soul is.  Yikes.  Another immaterial mind without matter, but it isn't like God, no sir, because only God is like God.

 

So not only are there immaterial minds, but there are multiple kinds of immaterial minds, all operating on various levels of obfuscation.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Try asking

mellestad wrote:

Try asking them what a soul is.  Yikes.  Another immaterial mind without matter, but it isn't like God, no sir, because only God is like God.

 

So not only are there immaterial minds, but there are multiple kinds of immaterial minds, all operating on various levels of obfuscation.

Makes perfect sense to me, too.

These Metaphysical scientists and logicians are terrifyingly bright! 

 

Ooo lala!  Sacre Bleu!!

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Try asking

mellestad wrote:

Try asking them what a soul is.  Yikes.  Another immaterial mind without matter, but it isn't like God, no sir, because only God is like God.

 

So not only are there immaterial minds, but there are multiple kinds of immaterial minds, all operating on various levels of obfuscation.

 

And I think that a soul at least the word it translates from the Greek New Testament means a immaterial body!!!!! Pneuma means spirit but pseuche and pseuchikos

 

(soul )and soul body or physical body. In 1 Corinthians 15:44 the resurrection body is called a pneumatikon a spiritual body.  SO ya got ghosts...immaterial bodies with immaterial minds. Remember Jesus walks through walls after he is "resurrected" It  kinda indicates an early ghost story doesn't it.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:mellestad

redneF wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Try asking them what a soul is.  Yikes.  Another immaterial mind without matter, but it isn't like God, no sir, because only God is like God.

 

So not only are there immaterial minds, but there are multiple kinds of immaterial minds, all operating on various levels of obfuscation.

Makes perfect sense to me, too.

These Metaphysical scientists and logicians are terrifyingly bright! 

 

Ooo lala!  Sacre Bleu!!

 

 

WHo ya gonna call. Ghostbusters.... too much ectoplasm left about this forum....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:There is

angelobrazil wrote:

There is tons of evidence. Fact that you ignore it, doesnt make your standpoint to be more true. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god

Nice website, its' full of crap, lets take it apart shall we.

The Universe most likely had a beginning: Whatever caused the universe could be as simple as a quantum flux, something this entire website ignores. Of course quantum flux or a Loop quantum gravity could have been the cause for the release of energy in our universe. However no god or intelligence is required and is still a far better answer than god did it. There is actually no evidence that a god did anything at all, even worse it does not even point to the fact that it had to be YOUR version of god, the entire argument just goes towards it being caused by an intelligence, doesn't mean it was your version of god. There is no evidence that the release of energy had to be caused by a more powerful energy force, on the contrary a small spike in energy which could have been caused by a quantum flux could have caused a chain reaction that would have destabilize the singularity. Of course I expect you to ignore any of this stuff and continue to dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary of your beliefs

The Universe is finely tuned: Yet another argument from ignorance. What are all the possible ways for life to exist? Do you know? I highly doubt it since no one has actually knows this. If another minute change most likely would cause the other forces to change, how that would affect life we don't know. Instead of carbon based we could be silicon based or one of many other forms, we simply do not know because we do not know all the possible scenarios in which life could arise. As well it very well could be with all that with the energy in the singularity that the forces could only be one way and that's it. Again WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW and making this claim as this website does is ridiculous.

Life: Yeah love the spiritual part, no evidence at all to back up their ridiculous claim that information is spiritual no physical, information cannot exist without the physical, no physical no information. As for the rest of it well lets admit it is simply the irreducible complexity argument that gets debunked time after time, and as science continues to do research it continues to make this claim look more and more ridiculous. For example RNA ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm&nbspEye-wink which explains the leap to DNA....which all of it is done without your immaterial mind. Of course feel free to ignore this as well.

The moral argument and the value of life: Yes lets do this one, one in which a god decides to murder babies and mothers and children simply because they occupy jewish lands. Even better orders to kill someone because they are wearing cloth made of 2 different types of material. Shall even start with the slavery part? Look we are social creatures and we have evolved the morality we have, it has even been shown in many other social creatures that they have various degrees of morality within the social order, especially in regards to killing others within the same society, or even theft within the social society this creatures live in. Which is why in the bible there is no problem killing others that are not jewish or taking their land, women or children, they aren't jewish therefore god doesn't care about them. Happens all the time, the value of life to god doesn't really matter as for the morality it's sucks.

Without god nor reason to exist and no ultimate goal: Why does there have to be a reason to exist and an ultimate goal for life? Beyond reproducing and continuing the species which what all life has a strong tendency to do and well hey that is the reason and the ultimate goal for me. God is not required, life does not care for god or your silly ideas.

Religious experiences and miracles: Yes more cultures have religious experiences and the fact that it can be reproduced by triggering certain parts of the brain, shows no spirituality, but a physiological and psychological effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion you can read more there and do more research if you like. But again ignore it as you ignore everything else.

As for the rest of it, everyone here has debunked it so many times it's not worth going through it again, hell most of it has been debunked in this thread alone. Well have fun and continue to life in your life of blind ignorance.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Who

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point.
And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You nowhere addressed

Quote:
You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example.

This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.

wrong. I have adressed it more than onces. It seems you just choose to ignore my answers, and then throw your " you are a liar" adhom at me.

once again :

step by step mutation/selection is not a working force at this stage. As shown already :

We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is
‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55
This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life

what exactly about this argument do you not understand ? or i am right in saying you act dishonestly in accusing me of not adress your arguments ?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Brian37

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previously posted as responses

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

Take some time to read Sam harris's book, the Moral Landscape. Well-being is a scientifically objectifiable state as is good health.  You can think of its opposite as a place where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible (sounds like a christian hell).  Anything that moves from that base of suffering is a movement to well being and can be seen as objective. In fact moral atheism is more moral than Christian. The atheist does the good for the sake of it being so whereas a Christian does it because it is commanded by god or out of fear and threats of going to hell.

There is evidence that some animals feel remorse and guilt (primates).  The idea of good health is a flexible but objective one. So is well being. It's hypothetical opposite is a world where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible.  We want to move away from that to wel lbeing. Anything that reduces pain and suffering in the world is good.  This is more moral than theism for one does the good for the sake of the good instead of obedience  to an autocratic god like polpot that you obey for fear and threats of eternal torture for stealing a cookie as a child.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Brian37

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

So what? Why do you need a non material invisible fictional super brain to decide for yourself what is right and wrong?

I explained to you WHY Hitler's morals were wrong, and I also explained to you that morals are a product of evolution and are changing all the time.

Hitlers morals were shaped by his parents and he ended up buying into the same absolute authority crap your comic book super hero sells in the bible.

Morals do change like weather patterns change over time. If morals were static and never changed you'd be treating women like property and you will still own slaves. I am damned glad people ignore their holy books because if they did what it said we would still be living in the dark ages.

Morals are not absolute. So what? That does not mean that because they are not absolute and not handed down by a comic book super hero, that change will never improve and always produce fascism. I don't have any felony record and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket, and that was almost a decade ago.

I am an atheist, not a fascist, nor a communist. And I don't need your fictional being to live my life. It just bothers you that other people don't buy into your myth. That is your baggage, not ours.

Humans are not automatically immoral or moral by proxy of a label. Magic is not needed to explain life. I am sorry you can't accept that.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:You

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example. This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.
wrong. I have adressed it more than onces. It seems you just choose to ignore my answers, and then throw your " you are a liar" adhom at me. once again : step by step mutation/selection is not a working force at this stage. As shown already : We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is ‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55 This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life what exactly about this argument do you not understand ? or i am right in saying you act dishonestly in accusing me of not adress your arguments ?
I understand it. It just is not valid any more than the argument is that the world is 6000 years old.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:angelobrazil

Brian37 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

So what? Why do you need a non material invisible fictional super brain to decide for yourself what is right and wrong?

I explained to you WHY Hitler's morals were wrong, and I also explained to you that morals are a product of evolution and are changing all the time.

Hitlers morals were shaped by his parents and he ended up buying into the same absolute authority crap your comic book super hero sells in the bible.

Morals do change like weather patterns change over time. If morals were static and never changed you'd be treating women like property and you will still own slaves. I am damned glad people ignore their holy books because if they did what it said we would still be living in the dark ages.

Morals are not absolute. So what? That does not mean that because they are not absolute and not handed down by a comic book super hero, that change will never improve and always produce fascism. I don't have any felony record and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket, and that was almost a decade ago.

I am an atheist, not a fascist, nor a communist. And I don't need your fictional being to live my life. It just bothers you that other people don't buy into your myth. That is your baggage, not ours.

Humans are not automatically immoral or moral by proxy of a label. Magic is not needed to explain life. I am sorry you can't accept that.

 

 

Fundamental Christianity does tend to treat women as property. man is head of the household. Women be silent in the church. Women may not be ministers.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Do not lecture us about

Do not lecture us about morals when your holy book's main  fictional character's goal is all about him.  The good thing is that no such being exists, the bad thing is people like you, in our modern age are still trying to sell this mythological cosmic dictator.

Now before you go whining about me "hating" god, I cannot hate something that does not exist. That would be like accusing me of hating Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. But I damn sure would hate it if people actually believed Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor were real and went around selling it and pushing it on national politics.

The entire book's goal is about ONE BEING. And it is a giant "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" self promotion.

That is selfish narcissism. Better morality is doing the right thing WITHOUT expectation or seeking attention for oneself. God is all about seeking attention for himself. AS A CONCEPT, that is the ultimate goal of the people who wrote that horrible work of fiction.

YOU are a victim of mind slavery. You have given up your own freedom to a dictatorial concept, and a poorly written and scientifically absurd one at that.

Rule by one person is what humans define as dictator. If you are going to claim that God cannot be voted out of office and his power is unmovable and unchangable, that makes him a dictator.

You worship a dictator. (mind you, I am merely talking about a fictional concept) but since you believe in this god, I am merely telling you what humans define as  dictator. RULE BY ONE!

How does it feel to worship a dictator?

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Brian37

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

So what? Why do you need a non material invisible fictional super brain to decide for yourself what is right and wrong?

I explained to you WHY Hitler's morals were wrong, and I also explained to you that morals are a product of evolution and are changing all the time.

Hitlers morals were shaped by his parents and he ended up buying into the same absolute authority crap your comic book super hero sells in the bible.

Morals do change like weather patterns change over time. If morals were static and never changed you'd be treating women like property and you will still own slaves. I am damned glad people ignore their holy books because if they did what it said we would still be living in the dark ages.

Morals are not absolute. So what? That does not mean that because they are not absolute and not handed down by a comic book super hero, that change will never improve and always produce fascism. I don't have any felony record and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket, and that was almost a decade ago.

I am an atheist, not a fascist, nor a communist. And I don't need your fictional being to live my life. It just bothers you that other people don't buy into your myth. That is your baggage, not ours.

Humans are not automatically immoral or moral by proxy of a label. Magic is not needed to explain life. I am sorry you can't accept that.

 

 

Fundamental Christianity does tend to treat women as property. man is head of the household. Women be silent in the church. Women may not be ministers.

 

 

Good thing for us, at least in America, if a woman wants to be a minister, they don't have to listen to the sexist dicks of the past and they can start their own church.

This move away from treating woman like property, but still not letting them lead a church, is just a back peddle because they are forced to deal with the reality that women are not putting up with the bullshit of the past that were bible based.

The reason some churches today are allowing women to lead is because they are cherry picking the bible in order to keep up with modern marketing and secular society that has left this sexist comic book behind.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:TGBaker

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

So what? Why do you need a non material invisible fictional super brain to decide for yourself what is right and wrong?

I explained to you WHY Hitler's morals were wrong, and I also explained to you that morals are a product of evolution and are changing all the time.

Hitlers morals were shaped by his parents and he ended up buying into the same absolute authority crap your comic book super hero sells in the bible.

Morals do change like weather patterns change over time. If morals were static and never changed you'd be treating women like property and you will still own slaves. I am damned glad people ignore their holy books because if they did what it said we would still be living in the dark ages.

Morals are not absolute. So what? That does not mean that because they are not absolute and not handed down by a comic book super hero, that change will never improve and always produce fascism. I don't have any felony record and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket, and that was almost a decade ago.

I am an atheist, not a fascist, nor a communist. And I don't need your fictional being to live my life. It just bothers you that other people don't buy into your myth. That is your baggage, not ours.

Humans are not automatically immoral or moral by proxy of a label. Magic is not needed to explain life. I am sorry you can't accept that.

 

 

Fundamental Christianity does tend to treat women as property. man is head of the household. Women be silent in the church. Women may not be ministers.

 

 

Good thing for us, at least in America, if a woman wants to be a minister, they don't have to listen to the sexist dicks of the past and they can start their own church.

This move away from treating woman like property, but still not letting them lead a church, is just a back peddle because they are forced to deal with the reality that women are not putting up with the bullshit of the past that were bible based.

The reason some churches today are allowing women to lead is because they are cherry picking the bible in order to keep up with modern marketing and secular society that has left this sexist comic book behind.

 

I agree and it depends on the denomination. The more conservative or fundamentalist the more the suppression of women. Southern Baptist ...still no women in the pulpit, Church of Christ, etc.  The ones that allow women are condemned by the churches that don't. I did a study of denominational splintering in college. The Church of Christ pulled out of the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ because they did not find any place for pianos or organs in the church. They then split into separate movements over rather it was one loaf or wafers for communion. Another pulled out about Sunday school. One cup or a bunch of little ones for the grape juice.  Faith gets very petty when it looks for right doctrine. I found one liberal church of christ trying to maintain its doctrine of no musical instruments in the church. They put the organ in the foyer ante-room or closet and then piped the music in with speakers.  Talk about splitting hairs... Jesus Christ.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:You

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example. This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.
wrong. I have adressed it more than onces. It seems you just choose to ignore my answers, and then throw your " you are a liar" adhom at me. once again : step by step mutation/selection is not a working force at this stage. As shown already : We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is ‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55 This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life what exactly about this argument do you not understand ? or i am right in saying you act dishonestly in accusing me of not adress your arguments ?

This is still NOT addressing my point, which was that calculating the probabilities of arriving at a particular outcome by throwing a few dice at a time until you get a significant combination before moving on to another die or sub-set of dice dramatically reduces the number throws needed to get to the final outcome. You were the one who tried to debunk my account of non-intelligent emergence of information in DNA by throwing the old crap about monkeys and typewriters.

When I first pointed this out after presenting a more detailed argument about how breaking a random process into smaller steps had this effect, your only response at that time was to repeat your claim about the improbability of getting a result by throwing the dice 'all at one time'. If that was not a blatant example of not addressing my argument, WTF would you call it?

Instead you are going on to claim that that 'does not apply at this stage' and quote ID'er nonsense at me. That is not acknowledging my point, that your 'million monkeys at typewriters' is not a model of what is happening in the emergence and evolution of life, where, from the very first replicating system, selection will be working.

BTW, modern Supercomputers are up to 200,000 processor cores, each core having many millions of transistors, up to hundred's of millions.

You have instead switched to another topic, 'irreducible complexity'. Behe's version presented at the Dover trial has been thoroughly debunked in every possible way. It assumes the finally mechanism has to be specifically the target of any evolutionary process, which would require each intermediate stage to be an incomplete and therefore non-functional version of the final mechanism. This doesn't allow for the path to go through physically similar stages which provide quite different functions, and that can apply to every component as well.

This is a problem, you keep switching subjects when you don't have a direct rebuttal of my point, which is very dishonest.

Of course almost all existing cells show this more-or-less fully developed system, precisely because it is much more functional than possible simpler versions of it. This in no way means there never were no intermediate and simpler mechanisms, but would have been pretty much completely displace by the better mechanism billions of years ago, and cellular mechanics leave no fossils. But there is actually still quite a range in complexity between the simplest and most complex cells still around.

It is a formidable forensic task to reconstruct the likely path of the emergence and early evolution of life, after that much time.

DNA sequencing and comparison across species, and the study of those prokaryotes which do have significantly simpler cellular mechanics are all providing clues. Some research suggests that maybe 200 genes is around the minimum for a viable cell.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You nowhere addressed my point about step-by-step mutation/selection as against your 'throw all the dice at once' picture, just for one example. This is evidence that you are either deluded, impaired, or a liar.
wrong. I have adressed it more than onces. It seems you just choose to ignore my answers, and then throw your " you are a liar" adhom at me. once again : step by step mutation/selection is not a working force at this stage. As shown already : We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is ‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55 This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life what exactly about this argument do you not understand ? or i am right in saying you act dishonestly in accusing me of not adress your arguments ?

This is still NOT addressing my point, which was that calculating the probabilities of arriving at a particular outcome by throwing a few dice at a time until you get a significant combination before moving on to another die or sub-set of dice dramatically reduces the number throws needed to get to the final outcome. You were the one who tried to debunk my account of non-intelligent emergence of information in DNA by throwing the old crap about monkeys and typewriters.

Instead you are going on to claim that that 'does not apply at this stage' and quote ID'er nonsense at me. That is not acknowledging my point, that your 'million monkeys at typewriters' is not a model of what is happening in the emergence and evolution of life, where, from the very first replicating system, selection will be working.

BTW, modern Supercomputers are up to 200,000 processor cores, each core having many millions of transistors, up to hundred's of millions.

You have instead switched to another topic, 'irreducible complexity'. Behe's version presented at the Dover trial has been thoroughly debunked in every possible way. It assumes the finally mechanism has to be specifically the target of any evolutionary process, which would require each intermediate stage to be an incomplete and therefore non-functional version of the final mechanism. This doesn't allow for the path to go through physically similar stages which provide quite different functions, and that can apply to every component as well.

This is a problem, you keep switching subjects when you don't have a direct rebuttal of my point, which is very dishonest.

Of course almost all existing cells show this more-or-less fully developed system, precisely because it is much more functional than possible simpler versions of it. This in no way means there never were no intermediate and simpler mechanisms, but would have been pretty much completely displace by the better mechanism billions of years ago, and cellular mechanics leave no fossils. But there is actually still quite a range in complexity between the simplest and most complex cells still around.

It is a formidable forensic task to reconstruct the likely path of the emergence and early evolution of life, after that much time.

DNA sequencing and comparison across species, and the study of those prokaryotes which do have significantly simpler cellular mechanics are all providing clues. Some research suggests that maybe 200 genes is around the minimum for a viable cell.

Bob, you are wasting your time with this dice example because he is already presuming that the dice are loaded and thrown by a super human with magic super powers, so even in talking about dice, he still presumes the dice are magically manipulated.

Here, let me pull my two trick pony out to short cut all this.

FACT, VIRGIN BIRTHS DONT HAPPEN, IT TAKES TWO SETS OF DNA TO MANIFEST INTO A ZYGOTE, THUS VIRGIN BIRTHS ARE BULLSHIT CLAIMS

FACT, HUMAN FLESH DOES NOT SURVIVE RIGOR MORTIS THUS MAKING ZOMBIE GOD CLAIMS OF JESUS SURVIVING DEATH BULLSHIT.

He has merely fallen for a super hero concept like all others of all religions prior to the god/s of Abraham and even today. Humans like the idea of a super hero swooping them off the train tracks so they continue to believing them and invent them.

Sorry to spoil your fun, I just see no need to dance down their Yellow Brick Road, when it is obvious they merely like the idea of having a super hero save them.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Angelo's whole tactic is

Angelo's whole tactic is based on dishonesty.

He cherry-picks science quotes, ignores or sidesteps refuting arguments, and then falls back to the Argument from Ignorance, ie "Science can't ( currently ) explain that, therefore GodDidIt. Despite the long history of Science progressively coming to explain stuff that was once considered evidence for God.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Brian37

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews

Genocide has always been a product of evolution and still exists today. . Africa's genocide today is not due to just tribal war, but also the bad advice the Pope gives to people because they wont use condoms.

Hitler, FYI, was not an atheist. He was a mixture of the occult and Christianity. His Nazi SS belt buckles had "Got min uns" as the slogan on them.

And the church of his time did nothing to condone him.

Hitler had more in common with your god character than I do, even if he was an atheist, which he was not. His attitude, which is the same of the god of the bible, "My way or the highway, and if you don't do what I say, I will torture and murder you" and "outsiders" shall be cleansed.

The god of the bible does the same thing and in the end the outsiders get thrown in the trash heap, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

And equating me to Hitler, even if he was an atheist, would be like saying "all men with mustaches love Hitler"

Are all Catholics child molesters because of some priests?

Genocide exists, not because we evolved to value it. It exists because it happens from time to time. If it was a benefit to our species it would happen everywhere all the time. The reason it gets shot down eventually and stops is because of the negative reaction people have to it.

MOSTLY genocide exists because of flawed logic in that "if we just get rid of these people, we can solve our problems".

The good and bad that happen in life do not need a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork fighting over the neurons in our heads. Hitler existed because humans are capable of doing horrible things. He was able to rise to power, not because he was right, but because Germany got it's ass kicked in WW1 and suffered a depression inbetween and he was the only person to give that country a sense of dignity. Unfortunately it came at the cost of rational thought and made the Germans victims of Hitler as well.

WW2 would not have happened if the rest of the world had cleaned up and built up Germany after the first time. Most likely if we had, Hitler would have been nothing but a street corner bum people would have wanted to stick in a mental institution.

To him and his people at the time, he wasn't. He was wrong for the same reason Christians and Muslims today claim superiority and "chosen people".

He got knocked out because he wanted to bully other people. Why, because he was bullied himself, not by society, but litteraly his own dad. He went on to abuse society because his own dad in reality physically and verbally abused him.  He illogically equated, without knowing his own psychology, that tough power and absolute rules were the only way to go. His dad beat the shit out of him to keep him in line and that fear and he in turn thought that beating the shit out of others was the way to gain respect.

Same power god belief has over humans over fear of punishment.

He was wrong because his logic was flawed and genocide, while it might work for a few in a short time frame in history, in the long term no individual human wants to be murdered. Our species might use genocide as a tool and call it moral, but when they do that, it is not morality, it is an excuse to get what you want and have power over others. It is the same flawed logic and mental state that causes a rapist to rape. It works in the sense that it works for the person who wants power, but is immoral because it comes at the expense of others.

Hitler was wrong because his power came at the cost of harming others. It was moral to the Germans who supported him, but is was delusional and flawed logic that lead them to that claimed morality.

"Chosen people" That is what Hitler thought of Germans.

"Chosen people" Jews think Yahweh chose them,

"Chosen people" Christians claim Jesus chose them

"Chosen people" Muslims claim Allah chose them.

"Chosen people" Russians under Stalin claimed that the workers were the chosen people

 

The dangerous outcome off all these motifs is that this idea that their is one power that can solve all problems will be good for outsiders as well and that gives us the right to force it on others.

Bad logic is why Hitler was wrong and his own abuse by his father shaped his idea of how one should gain respect from others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all what you said does not change the fact that objective moral values without God do not exist, and everything is equal valid and aloud. it depends just on the view point. And kill a baby is not morally worse than to eat a ice cream. there is no difference to it.

So what? Why do you need a non material invisible fictional super brain to decide for yourself what is right and wrong?

I explained to you WHY Hitler's morals were wrong, and I also explained to you that morals are a product of evolution and are changing all the time.

Hitlers morals were shaped by his parents and he ended up buying into the same absolute authority crap your comic book super hero sells in the bible.

Morals do change like weather patterns change over time. If morals were static and never changed you'd be treating women like property and you will still own slaves. I am damned glad people ignore their holy books because if they did what it said we would still be living in the dark ages.

Morals are not absolute. So what? That does not mean that because they are not absolute and not handed down by a comic book super hero, that change will never improve and always produce fascism. I don't have any felony record and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket, and that was almost a decade ago.

I am an atheist, not a fascist, nor a communist. And I don't need your fictional being to live my life. It just bothers you that other people don't buy into your myth. That is your baggage, not ours.

Humans are not automatically immoral or moral by proxy of a label. Magic is not needed to explain life. I am sorry you can't accept that.

 

 

Fundamental Christianity does tend to treat women as property. man is head of the household. Women be silent in the church. Women may not be ministers.

 

 

And Catholics.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Angelo's

BobSpence1 wrote:

Angelo's whole tactic is based on dishonesty.

He cherry-picks science quotes, ignores or sidesteps refuting arguments, and then falls back to the Argument from Ignorance, ie "Science can't ( currently ) explain that, therefore GodDidIt. Despite the long history of Science progressively coming to explain stuff that was once considered evidence for God.

Other than obscure logic stuff, this is all they really have.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Angelo's

BobSpence1 wrote:

Angelo's whole tactic is based on dishonesty.

He cherry-picks science quotes, ignores or sidesteps refuting arguments, and then falls back to the Argument from Ignorance, ie "Science can't ( currently ) explain that, therefore GodDidIt. Despite the long history of Science progressively coming to explain stuff that was once considered evidence for God.

Right, Newton had religious leanings but he also postulated Alchemy as a lagit science. Being smart and right about some things does not make one right about all things.

There are plenty of Jews and Muslims with even PHDs in science but yet he is not Jewish or Muslim.

Neil Degrees Tyson has a video explaining this trap smart people have fallen for throughout history. Time after time when a ceiling was hit, someone would say, "This is it, after this, it must be a god" and time after time future people would break that ceiling and fill it with a natural explanation.

No credible scientist is going to say they know the future, but at the same time we should always be willing to discard bad data, ESPECIALLY MYTH!

Otherwise if we always clung to bad data because it was popular, the sun would be a god and the earth would be flat, because we didn't have the answers at the time.

Neil would say EVEN TO FELLOW SCIENTISTS don't ever say, "This is it" and fill it with a gap answer. He says he doesn't want anyone in his labs with that attitude.

"I don't know" does not constitute tribal childish ancient myth being true.

I do know currently, based on our best scientific data, that a thought cannot occur without material. So unless and until someone has testable data that can be independently thrashed without personal bias, I would suggest that this is merely a mundane product of simple human projection of human qualities on the world around them.

Religion is nothing more than Santa for adults.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37