How the athiest thinks

JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
How the athiest thinks

Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.

The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall. They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science". They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?

"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"

Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?

Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that) Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?

these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.

 

and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Before I respond to any more posts, I wanted to tell you a little more about me. I gather, as you all seem to be intelligent people, that academic qualifications are important to you. I want you to know that even intelligent people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is real.
I don't want your resume. Where is your EVIDENCE for jesus? We want evidence. You have presented nothing in the form of evidence.

Thus your empty claim can be dismissed out of hand. Your honesty about anything you've said in this forum is highly dubious and you are very skilled in the art of avoiding questions.

Red Herring

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: However, upon

Quote:
However, upon careful comparison, you would find that Muhammad and Jesus led very different lives that came to very different conclusion…as well, their teachings were not the same. I believe there is a God, and given the choice between Jesus and Muhammad, Jesus makes more sense to me.

Certainly the terrorists associated with 9/11 would disagree with you. Thus reverting us to plurality. There's no objective way (yet) to determine why Christianity is "more right" than Islam, so from the perspective of a non-believer in any of these two religions, they are equally merituous.

Quote:
I’m guessing you understand what I mean when I say, how about reading Genesis again, figuratively.

How about reading the whole Bible figuratively? Why read only some of the books figuratively and others literally?

And if you do read the whole Bible figuratively, that leaves the same number of possible interpretations as people are out there.

We're both discussing this as if it didn't happen... Well, it did happen... and the result was many little sub-religions whose only connection point is believing in approximately the same god. The path of salvation (if the case), the moral code, etc., in short, all that's actually important out of that book, is a simple nebula, with absolutely no way of determining which is right and which is wrong. And due to their mutual exclusiveness, they can't all be right.

So again this leads us straight back to plurality. Neither of us has achieved anything through this.

Quote:
What scripture are you citing here? I am unaware of it. God does not approve of everything that happened in the Bible, somethings are recorded so that we can learn from other’s mistakes.

Is that so? Well then, if something happens against God's will, then he is not omnipotent. If something happens outside God's knowledge, he is not omniscient. If somethingn happens outside of God's presence, he is not omnipresent.

Care to review that one, please?

Quote:
I believe your lack of imagination has led you to severely limit your worldview, because in your lack of imagination, you limit God. (And not, this does not mean God is imagined, it means, we can discover truths via the process of imagination…since you seem to be unwilling to do that, I believe you are missing out on some profound truths.)

I didn't limit God, I just stated an obvious fact. Go to a tribe council in Africa and ask them what they think about the sacrifice of Jesus. Chances for you being asked "Who's Jesus?" are almost 100%

Actually, since I did give you that situation, obviously I can imagine it happening. But does that happen? Umm... nope.

Quote:
Okay, so this shows me you can use your imagination. BTW: Who is wrong in Saudi, the Christians for believing or the Saudi’s for killing them because of it?

The righteousness of a messenger doesn't affect the truth (or lack of) of the message. For all we know, even Satan could be the creator of the Universe.

Quote:
So, there was more speculation (and continues to be) required in order to piece together Mithras…So, it makes more since for me to trust the detailed text that has been around for centuries, correct? That would be the logical thing to do.

Sure. That's why some people are Buddhists. AGAIN I must point out that Christianity shouldn't bring the "test of time" argument, since Christianity fails it miserably compared to other religions.

Quote:
I have stated as much. His life has also been uniquely documented, a document which has survived for centuries.

So has been Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, Dyonissos, etc. Which YET AGAIN reverts us straight back to plurality.

Quote:
The difference is I use my creative mind to come to conclusions also. You give me the impression that you are distrustful of your right brain…You think all it does is spout out lies to you? I think the creative mind also reveals truths to us, just as the analytical mind does… However, the process of revealing those truths is entirely different.

The right side of the brain, if I'm not mistaken, is supposed to reveal the inner self of one. Unfortunately, what it miserably fails to do is to reflect reality in an objective way. No matter how much yo loathe the 9/11 things, and no matter how undesirable or nauseous you think those events are, that doesn't make them less real. And on the same lines, no matter how much you'd wish we all lived in an utopia, "heaven on earth", that doesn't make it more real.

Quote:
Which, by coming to this conclusion, you can conveniently dismiss him because he said things you don’t like.

I spot a projection here. I never said anything like that, and certainly I don't dismiss him because of what he said. Muhammad also said some things that I don't agree with, but I'm not disputing that he was a real person once.

You, however, did indirectly imply that you dismiss Muhammad because some of his sayings make less sense to you than Jesus'. So do not accuse me of something YOU did.

Quote:
So you think, kind of by luck, things like the sermon on the mount…which is very valuable to humanity, morally speaking, just sort of came about because people said, oh let me switch this word or that word to make it more powerful?

I have no way of knowing for sure, but yes, that's pretty much the point. Note that the Bible you currently have has not always been like that. This shape of the Bible has only been on after the second council of Niceea (if I'm not mistaken - anyone who knows the exact moment please correct me if wrong). Choosing which books go in and which go out has, historically speaking, been a matter of human choice.

Quote:
The gospels do not read like the myths I have read.

You should read more. That's not an excuse.

Quote:
Also, for there to be four gospels, because of their similarities, they would have had to have been spread initially as one story, then branch off…well, when are you proposing they branched off, year 100, year 75?

Rook Hawkins can tell you better, I'm really weak at remembering exact numbers.

Quote:
Well, wait a minute, you are saying the parts about Paul were not mythically adapted, so…Paul had knowledge of the gospels apparently.

Apparently he DIDN'T...

Quote:
Which versions do you think he was reading from? How “adapted” were they, at that point. And…if he was reading from a different version…wouldn’t we notice more inconsistancies between his messages and the messages in the gospels?

But we DO notice inconsistencies. Skeptics' Annotated Bible, The Atheism Pages at Ebon Musings, The Jesus Puzzle... perhaps you should read these. I'd simply spend several months explaining what they have already explained, and I'm really not going to do that.

Quote:
Also, do you not believe people 2000 years ago had the ability to record history, or no?

Well, considering Pliny, Josephus, Ovidivs, Heraclitus and many others (some that, as you probably noticed, weren't historians at all), we can pretty much say that they did have the ability to record history. Which is pretty much why some dispute the life of Jesus.

Quote:
Were they just too dumb to do it successfully, without fudging all the details?

I never said that. What I did say, though, is that perhaps they might have had an interest in recording it in a specific way.

Do take into consideration that we have no way of knowing that the gospels weren't in fact simple fairy-tales that were meant to have a moralizing effect on young, just as we have such fairy-tales today.

Quote:
Why are we bothering to study ANY ancient text, then, anyway? If the a given text wasn’t penned the exact time the author was thinking it…if it is not the author’s ORIGINAL text, can we not trust the text at all to provide any hint of historical accuracy?

Would you give historical accuracy to the Divine Comedy? Or perhaps to Shakespeare's writings? No you wouldn't, would you?

The difference is that these writings do NOT CLAIM to be the only objective truth that we must follow. Which cannot be said about the Bible.

Quote:
What ancient text are you trusting to give you this information? How do you know that text was not modified? If you say the Bible was modified, then any historical text could have been modified, so we have to take them all with a grain of salt and just can’t come to any solid conclusions about our own history.

I never said the Bible was modified. True, perhaps some errors did occur, because of translation, but I have no reason to believe it was modified in any other way much. Still, that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't change the fact that Christianity simply didn't go global instantly.

Quote:
Why do you focus on the punishment and not the promise?

That has to be the dumbest question you could have asked. Isn't it OBVIOUS ? Do you have the guarantee that you'll go to Heaven? Are you 100% sure? What if this whole thing is right and we end up both in hell, saying to each other "See? I told you!"

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: No. My

rexlunae wrote:

No. My morality is not based on a delusion.
Then you must be a very intelligent person, to be able to come up with all these moral truths, to pick and chose, all by yourself and NEVER make any mistakes by chosing incorrectly. This is why I choose Jesus' morals over my own. He proved that he knew how to live a moral life. And people all around me are proving that following Jesus' teachings lead to moral lives. So, instead of taking my chances, and reinventing the wheel, I will go with what has been proven...to my very own eyes...to work. As far as whether your hand-picked set of morals is going to work for you in the long run, none of us will be able to judge until the day you die.

rexlunae wrote:

No, that would be bad in pretty much every case.
So you are saying some moral truths are relative, some are not. How is one to know the difference? Do we all get to decide for ourselves? In that case, for some people, maybe it is okay to abuse little kids.

rexlunae wrote:

What religions have you studied and rejected, and why?
Well, what is your definitions of studied, because I'm sure if I give you a list, you will come back with...you didn't study "enough" because, I am coming the conclusion that, the truth is, no amount of study would ever be enough for many of you on this site.

rexlunae wrote:

Movies?

Yes, you should check out some Mormon movies. There is one about a guy that goes on his mandatory mission trip, then comes back and his life is all screwy. They are not afraid to make fun of themselves. It was actually quite funny.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
So you are saying some

So you are saying some moral truths are relative, some are not. How is one to know the difference? Do we all get to decide for ourselves? In that case, for some people, maybe it is okay to abuse little kids.

Typical theistic nonsense in support of the notion that a divine lawmaker is necessary because humans are so stupid/depraved they cannot make moral law for themselves. Wake up! We are not children. It has been observed that men are completely capable of drawing up ethical moral codes themselves. In fact, it has always been men of reason that were better at ethical humanism than men of faith. From the ancient greeks to the founding fathers.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
In order to accept all

In order to accept all your conclusions, I have to accept that there is not God.  Explain to me how that is different, please.

Because there is no good reason to believe in God. No reason to believe that Jesus is divine any more than Zeus sends thunderbolts from the sky and Thor with is hammer lords over the clouds. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: It's becoming

ABx wrote:
It's becoming pretty apparent that you really don't have any reasoning behind your religious inclination at all. Thus far nearly every response you've given can be reduced to Because it feels good Because the bible says so", and "Because it makes sense to me".
To be blunt, here is what is becoming apparent to me. Everything you accuse me of, you are guilty of yourself. You have a god, his name is Logic. You hinge your life on Logic, you put your faith in it, as if it will NEVER fail you. How are you different than me in that respect? You have come to atheism because it makes you feel good. Jesus' message made you feel bad, the whole God idea makes you feel bad, so you have rejected it in favor of something that feels more comfortable to you. You trust texts to provide you with knowledge. You just chose different texts than I choose. You're actions, my actions reflect our base human nature, which, try as we might, we CANNOT escape. You cannot reason yourself out of that.

ABx wrote:
When questioned you simply reiterate the same, and if pressed further you make accusations of "over analyzing
I am not saying analyzing is bad, I'm saying you all are favoring it over all other forms of thought, and thus you are missing out on some profound, universal truths. However, you are comfortable with your logic, so, just as you would tell me to step out of my comfort zone, I also challenge you to step out of yours.

ABx wrote:
Your apparent fear of reason and logic does go quite a ways towards explaining the aforementioned assertions.
If I was afraid of, and did not enjoy using logic, why would I spend 40 hours a week solving logic puzzles? Your assumption about me is incorrect. I like analyzing, I like logic, I also like creativity, imagination, speculation, thinking outside the box...

ABx wrote:
That's fine, you just shouldn't go accusing everyone else of over-analyzing just because they say something that's over your head.
I am going to flip this around and say I am speaking over your head regarding spiritual matters. You have no concept of God, the creator, you do not understand him or know him at all, and you think this makes you smarter than me.

ABx wrote:
If you want to actually come up with any kind of evidence, nevertheless proof, of god it really will require quite a bit of analysis. If you're not prepared to do so, then you may as well leave the site
Yes, I may as well, because you are proving to me that my words are only falling on deaf ears. You and I, we do not even speak the same language.

ABx wrote:
I suspect that the sense of negativity mentioned earlier is mostly due to critical thinking. This is something that religion pretty much prohibits.
No, it does not. How do you know, if you have sheltered yourself from all religion, never go to church, how can you judge what goes on there? You just do not like the conclusions that the our critical thinking has led us to.

ABx wrote:
A thiest approaches a subject critically and the theist takes it as an attack - something you can see in nearly every thread.
My frustration has shown thru, as it is showing thru now, because I have beautiful truths to offer you and you turn away. I find that deeply troubling, frustrating, and sad. I find it troubling that I can not break thru to you. I have tried different methods, even imploying sarcasm, because you all seem to appreciate that type of humor, but to no avail. I'm sure you know Jesus predicted that some would refuse to hear his message, that their hearts would be hardened against it. These words of his have been proven true time and time again to me on this website.

ABx wrote:
I would say there's also a large part of it that's due to having it hammered into you that anyone that doesn't think like you has to do with the devil, evil, bad, etc. (depending on your denomination, but which all pretty much amounts to the same thing). They tell you that athiests are satanists, controlled by satan, negative, etc., and so of course you come here and you see that.
Here again you have made assumptions about my church which are just flat wrong. I've gone there for several years now, and we have had one sermon series on the devil. One, and that was just a few weeks. And no one ever brings up atheists. We go to church to talk about God and Jesus, and that's what we focus on, not the other stuff you just mentioned. The only time atheism has come up is when I told some of my friends that I was conversing with you on this site. They wished me luck, and said, do your best but don't get to discouraged when they don't listen to you.

ABx wrote:
Just look at the OP in this thread, the theist came here with pre-conceived notions of how we think, and refuses to take it from those that actually are atheists that they are not correct!
I see love in JLY's opening post and genuine care for all you. Jesus' message is so offensive to you that you do what you are accusing me of doing in regards to your message...you get angry.

ABx wrote:

You're probably also looking at the black background of this website and thinking "boy, this site is DARK, but I don't know why".

 

 

Now that's just silly, but I have heard black backgrounds are considered bad web design. Besides, it is kind of playing into the stereotype.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: ABx

sugarfree wrote:
ABx wrote:
It's becoming pretty apparent that you really don't have any reasoning behind your religious inclination at all. Thus far nearly every response you've given can be reduced to Because it feels good Because the bible says so", and "Because it makes sense to me".
To be blunt, here is what is becoming apparent to me. Everything you accuse me of, you are guilty of yourself. You have a god, his name is Logic. You hinge your life on Logic, you put your faith in it, as if it will NEVER fail you.
I'm laughing my ass off at this gem. What the hell? LOLOLLaughing

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
To be blunt, here is what

To be blunt, here is what is becoming apparent to me. Everything you accuse me of, you are guilty of yourself. You have a god, his name is Logic. You hinge your life on Logic, you put your faith in it, as if it will NEVER fail you. How are you different than me in that respect? You have come to atheism because it makes you feel good. Jesus' message made you feel bad, the whole God idea makes you feel bad, so you have rejected it in favor of something that feels more comfortable to you. You trust texts to provide you with knowledge. You just chose different texts than I choose. You're actions, my actions reflect our base human nature, which, try as we might, we CANNOT escape. You cannot reason yourself out of that.

Ah, I spot the logical fallacy here. You are using a chain of logic reasoning to suggest that relying mostly on chains of logical reasoning is bad. The fact is, this cognitive function is completely ingrained in the human mind. And I have used it to dismiss the notion of God. By insisting "we are blind" you are merely projecting theistic attributes onto us. Tell me, in a matter as important as whether or not there is a God, surely logic would triumph? You cannot possibly insist that this entity can only be understood by the right-brain. That's ridiculous.

 I am not saying analyzing is bad, I'm saying you all are favoring it over all other forms of thought, and thus you are missing out on some profound, universal truths. However, you are comfortable with your logic, so, just as you would tell me to step out of my comfort zone, I also challenge you to step out of yours.

Nothing wrong with not using logic sometimes. When I look at a painting or at a beautiful view, you think I rationalize it? No. But there is a difference between "alogical" meaning not using logic, and illogical, meaning makes no logical sense. God falls into the second category.

There are no universal truths. That is the only universal truth (a logical fallacy depending on how one construes it).

 If I was afraid of, and did not enjoy using logic, why would I spend 40 hours a week solving logic puzzles? Your assumption about me is incorrect. I like analyzing, I like logic, I also like creativity, imagination, speculation, thinking outside the box...

As do I. Now, why is it that I see no God, and you do? If you would clearly explain why you believe in God instead of abstract ramblings, we would take you more seriously.

 I am going to flip this around and say I am speaking over your head regarding spiritual matters. You have no concept of God, the creator, you do not understand him or know him at all, and you think this makes you smarter than me.

No. We have no concept of God because it is an illogical concept with no meaning, and you have presented us with no good reason to believe in this entity.

 

 No, it does not. How do you know, if you have sheltered yourself from all religion, never go to church, how can you judge what goes on there? You just do not like the conclusions that the our critical thinking has led us to.

You have not shown us that you have gone through a critical thinking process to conclude there is a God. All you have done is said that you have done it. Justify it.

My frustration has shown thru, as it is showing thru now, because I have beautiful truths to offer you and you turn away.

 Why shouldn't we? There is no good reason to believe you are offering us truth.

 I find that deeply troubling, frustrating, and sad. I find it troubling that I can not break thru to you. I have tried different methods, even imploying sarcasm, because you all seem to appreciate that type of humor, but to no avail.

You haven't tried anything. All you have done is rambled on about alogical entites and special pleading about Christianity.

I'm sure you know Jesus predicted that some would refuse to hear his message, that their hearts would be hardened against it. These words of his have been proven true time and time again to me on this website.

 Hearts hardened against it? What about brains immune to it?

 I see love in JLY's opening post and genuine care for all you. Jesus' message is so offensive to you that you do what you are accusing me of doing in regards to your message...you get angry.

The OP was an ignorant bigoted idiot who knew nothing of atheism (calling it satanic), knew nothing of science, or anything else for that matter. We put him in his place.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: I'm laughing my

AiiA wrote:
I'm laughing my ass off at this gem. What the hell? LOLOL
You are treating logic as an idol, and personally, I don't find that funny, I see it as a serious problem because it is hindering you from seeing that which is actually worthy of your worship.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Ah, I

deludedgod wrote:
Ah, I spot the logical fallacy here. You are using a chain of logic reasoning to suggest that relying mostly on chains of logical reasoning is bad. The fact is, this cognitive function is completely ingrained in the human mind.
Do you all realize that you are using logic to spin yourselves complex webs of nothingness? (Yes, go on and laugh, but, I am actually serious, I suppose if you realized you were doing it, you would stop.)
deludedgod wrote:
You cannot possibly insist that this entity can only be understood by the right-brain. That’s ridiculous.
No, I would not insist that, and I did not insist that.
deludedgod wrote:
There are no universal truths. That is the only universal truth (a logical fallacy depending on how one construes it).
I would just call it a fallacy, forget the logic part.
deludedgod wrote:
As do I. Now, why is it that I see no God, and you do?
I honestly have absolutely no idea.
deludedgod wrote:
You have not shown us that you have gone through a critical thinking process to conclude there is a God.
Because, it was a complex mental process that I went thru, over the course of many years. How could I possibly relay all that to you? All I can say is, if it is a path you decide to take, you will be rewarded with truth as I have been, and you will be eternally greatful.
deludedgod wrote:
You haven’t tried anything. All you have done is rambled on about alogical entites and special pleading about Christianity.
You and I also, are speaking two different languages. I can only shake my head in disbelief as I read your responses because I see you have missed everything I have tried to tell you. You, I’m sure feel the same way about me.
deludedgod wrote:
We put him in his place.
Perhaps he, like me, realized, to a point, nothing fruitful comes out of these discussions, so decided to save his energy for other things. I am sure he did not go away questioning his faith and sulking.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I have a

sugarfree wrote:
I have a B.S. in English and a minor in Creative Writing. I attended the honors college at my university, and graduated summa cum laude, with Honors, and with Academic Honors in Writing.
...

Actually, around here it's a meritocracy. The strength of your arguments determines how much people will treat them.

Lots of us, including myself, have college degrees, but that isn't something to boast about out of context.

sugarfree wrote:
I have been blessed with a gifted mind, as many of you have also. And my gifted mind has come to the thoughtful conclusion that it is in fact possible that there is a God, that that God did in fact walk this earth 2000 years ago, and that He continues to be our savior today.

I'm sorry, but you have not come to any such conclusion. You have made a rigid, unquestionable decision. In the time you have been posting here, I have seen you disavow logic, engage in blatant fallacies, ignore valid points, and generalize and misscharacterize atheists as a group. The only arguments you have really offered are subjective experiences. When challenged to evaluate other faiths, even those that are very similar to your own, first you reject them without even a moment's hesitation, then you evaluate them only in the context of Christian dogma. You never give even a moment's serious objective consideration to them. All that you have is faith, so don't pretend to have come to some intellectual conclusion.

sugarfree wrote:
Finally, I will tell you this…you cannot find and understand God thru logic alone.

I would argue that you can't know much of anything on logic alone. You need observation to have any knowledge to apply logic to. However, that does not excuse committing blatant logical fallacies. A conclusion reached by logical fallacies is specious, whether that conclusion is ultimately true or false.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: i honestly believe

Quote:
i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks

Proof of an inability to think...

The implication is that it's better to believe pleasant lies than hard truths if it makes you less likely to kill yourself. All that comment reveals is a disdain for truth.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: Quote: i

kmisho wrote:

Quote:
i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks

Proof of an inability to think...

The implication is that it's better to believe pleasant lies than hard truths if it makes you less likely to kill yourself. All that comment reveals is a disdain for truth.

Precisely.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
You have a god, his name is Logic.

Logic has a gender?

 

Oh, BTW thanks for sticking words in peoples mouths again.

 

And if logic was our god, then we wouldn't be atheists.

 

Hey-zues christine! You are nuts, aren't you?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: AiiA

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I'm laughing my ass off at this gem. What the hell? LOLOL
You are treating logic as an idol, and personally, I don't find that funny, I see it as a serious problem because it is hindering you from seeing that which is actually worthy of your worship.

 

What is worthy of worship is relative.

 

But then again, I see that you live in a black/white world. of 1's and 0's.

Realize the world is a big picture, with many shades. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: I'm sorry,

rexlunae wrote:

I'm sorry, but you have not come to any such conclusion. You have made a rigid, unquestionable decision.
Just as you are so rigid about your disbelief in God.
rexlunae wrote:
When challenged to evaluate other faiths, even those that are very similar to your own, first you reject them without even a moment's hesitation
I have already been down that road, have chosen christianity as a result.
rexlunae wrote:
All that you have is faith, so don't pretend to have come to some intellectual conclusion.
Well, if that were in fact true, I would still be a blessed person. Mother Theresa had a lot of faith, was a selfless person...and believed in Jesus too. If she was alive and came here, would you cut her down as you have cut me down? Would you tell her to give up her faith because she is delusional, or would you tell her to keep doing her good work?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
deludedgod wrote:
Ah, I spot the logical fallacy here. You are using a chain of logic reasoning to suggest that relying mostly on chains of logical reasoning is bad. The fact is, this cognitive function is completely ingrained in the human mind.
Do you all realize that you are using logic to spin yourselves complex webs of nothingness? 

 

You just love to sell yourself bullshit, don't you?

If there is a problem in his logic, point it out.

If all you can do is assert that he uses 'logic to spin himself into a complex web of nothingness" then concede that you actually don't have a point at all, and that, rather, you're just trying to convince yourself that you can ignore logic if you don't like the conclusions.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: What is

Ophios wrote:
What is worthy of worship is relative.
I couldn't disagree more.
Ophios wrote:
I still see in color, even after being baptized.

Ophios wrote:
Realize the world is a big picture, with many shades.
Okay, so at least we agree on this.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote:

Quote:
What is worthy of worship is relative.

 

Quote:
I couldn't disagree more.

Care to disprove?

Before you get to that, I have questions for you.

Is Jesus worthy of worship?

Is god?

Muhammed?

Besides the afformentioned three, is there anyone else, worth worshipping?

 

Also I am curious as to how you concluded, that the use of logic spinned a web of nothing? (Or something like that)

 

Quote:
I still see in color, even after being baptized.
 

Up/down, not left/right

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: If there

todangst wrote:
If there is a problem in his logic, point it out.
The problem I see in his logic is his basic assertion that there is not supreme being in this universe. I have pointed that out MANY times. So, given that our basic assumptions are different, my logic, and his logic, will never mix. I can make logical arguments within my worldview that are infact strong logical arguments, and he can do the same, however, when the arguments are compared to one another, they contrast sharply. But since everything's relative, we're both right. (You can't have your cake and eat it too.)


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: The

sugarfree wrote:
The problem I see in his logic is his basic assertion that there is no supreme being in this universe.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:rexlunae

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:

No. My morality is not based on a delusion.
Then you must be a very intelligent person, to be able to come up with all these moral truths, to pick and chose, all by yourself and NEVER make any mistakes by chosing incorrectly.

Well, thanks anyway, but the idea of mistakes is really only possible in an absolute moral system. Relative morals are 'corrected', in some sense, for pragmatic reasons.

sugarfree wrote:
This is why I choose Jesus' morals over my own.

And my point is that when you choose "Jesus's morals", as you perceive them, all you're really doing is choosing the morals codified in the fourth century without the benefit of pragmatic correction, and tainted by a variety of self-serving agendas of people both alive and long-dead.

sugarfree wrote:
He proved that he knew how to live a moral life.

He proved it? With what for proof? How do you prove morals?

sugarfree wrote:
And people all around me are proving that following Jesus' teachings lead to moral lives.

I suppose if you consider oppression of homosexuals and advocating ignorance moral, then maybe.

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:

No, that would be bad in pretty much every case.
So you are saying some moral truths are relative, some are not. How is one to know the difference? Do we all get to decide for ourselves? In that case, for some people, maybe it is okay to abuse little kids.

I am saying that a moral system which does not protect innocent children from being exploited is so broken that it will fail. When I say that morals are relative, I do not mean that they are entirely arbitrary. They are derived from the need to cooperate socially.

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
What religions have you studied and rejected, and why?
Well, what is your definitions of studied, because I'm sure if I give you a list, you will come back with...you didn't study "enough" because, I am coming the conclusion that, the truth is, no amount of study would ever be enough for many of you on this site.

All that I ask is that the evaluation be objective. In other words, do not assume that your faith is true in deciding on the truth of the other. This is synonymous with 'entertaining doubt'. You claim that you have studied other religions and concluded that Christianity is the best one. But the only reasons you have given are based on the assumption that Christianity is true.

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Movies?
Yes, you should check out some Mormon movies. There is one about a guy that goes on his mandatory mission trip, then comes back and his life is all screwy. They are not afraid to make fun of themselves. It was actually quite funny.

I don't know what movies you are talking about, do you have a title or a link?

The fact is, I have known 6 ex-Mormons, and I have a lot of information about them from reliable sources. I know about special underware (yes, really), the temple handshakes, the frequent revision of their holy texts, etc. The tacts used by the missionaries. I'm not sure what I could learn from the movies that I do not already know. However, this is entirely irrelevent to your reasons for rejecting this religion.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: AiiA

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I'm laughing my ass off at this gem. What the hell? LOLOL
You are treating logic as an idol, and personally, I don't find that funny, I see it as a serious problem because it is hindering you from seeing that which is actually worthy of your worship.
Logic is not an idol nor is it worshiped.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree:  "Well, if that

sugarfree:  "Well, if that were in fact true, I would still be a blessed person. Mother Theresa had a lot of faith, was a selfless person...and believed in Jesus too. If she was alive and came here, would you cut her down as you have cut me down? Would you tell her to give up her faith because she is delusional, or would you tell her to keep doing her good work?"

Oh, the old "Only Christians can perform acts that benefit mankind"?

The only discussion many of us would have with Mother Teresa would hinge on this question - Do you really need a God belief to be a good person and do charitable acts?

I don't believe that's true. Based on what I've seen, the Christians in my life use Christ as a blanket to cover their reprehensible actions. It's the "I can do what I want because I've been covered by the Blood of Jesus and I'm under grace and not under the law" 

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


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: If she was

sugarfree wrote:
If she was alive and came here, would you cut her down as you have cut me down?

I'd call her a sadistic bitch.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: todangst

sugarfree wrote:
todangst wrote:
If there is a problem in his logic, point it out.
The problem I see in his logic is his basic assertion that there is not supreme being in this universe. I have pointed that out MANY times. So, given that our basic assumptions are different, my logic, and his logic, will never mix. I can make logical arguments within my worldview that are infact strong logical arguments, and he can do the same, however, when the arguments are compared to one another, they contrast sharply. But since everything's relative, we're both right. (You can't have your cake and eat it too.)

Lets see your logic.

Show me your logical arguments. So far you've made nothing but naked claims. You have not shown any evidence to support any of your claims.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: Quote: i

kmisho wrote:

Quote:
i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks

Proof of an inability to think...

The implication is that it's better to believe pleasant lies than hard truths if it makes you less likely to kill yourself. All that comment reveals is a disdain for truth.

Actually, I requested the statistics for this very early on in this thread and was completely ignored. Why do you honestly think that the suicide rate is higher among atheists?  You clearly feek very strongly about this.

You also made a statement about atheist children feeling hopeless or worthless (I don't recall which) that was completely ridiculous as well.  Where is your proof? I highly doubt you could provide any.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Also I am

Ophios wrote:
Also I am curious as to how you concluded, that the use of logic spinned a web of nothing?
In this world it is probably possible to refute every argument. Based on my observation, many of you have spent much time refuting, but have not come to meaningful ultimate truths. (Except, you do conclude, that this universe was created out of nothing, which, would make that an ultimate truth. So, I guess that's one of those truths that isn't relative, which sets it apart from all those relative truths...) Once you have refuted everything, will you have anything of value left? But, if you believe we started from nothing, perhaps you are content with the idea of ending with nothing too.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: todangst

sugarfree wrote:
todangst wrote:
If there is a problem in his logic, point it out.
The problem I see in his logic is his basic assertion that there is not supreme being in this universe.

 

If you want to point out a problem in his logic, first  QUOTE his actual argument.

Then, show me where there is a problem.

Then present me with the logical falalcy. 

 

Quote:

I have pointed that out MANY times. So, given that our basic assumptions are different, my logic, and his logic, will never mix. 

This is just more nonsense you sell to yourself. You do a good job of deluding yourself, no one else here is buying it.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: sugarfree

AiiA wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
I'm laughing my ass off at this gem. What the hell? LOLOL
You are treating logic as an idol, and personally, I don't find that funny, I see it as a serious problem because it is hindering you from seeing that which is actually worthy of your worship.
Logic is not an idol nor is it worshiped.

 

"Logic is our idol"

In other words, we insist on being logical.

He, however, prefers to ignore logic when a logical conclusion doesn't go his way... 

Which is why he must disparage logic.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:Ophios

sugarfree wrote:
Ophios wrote:
Also I am curious as to how you concluded, that the use of logic spinned a web of nothing?
In this world it is probably possible to refute every argument.

Such cynicism.

2+2=4

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.

It's not possible to refute many arguments. If a deductive argument is valid, and the premises true, you have no choice but to accept the conclusion.

For inductive arguments, it's always possible to doubt their conclusions, but doubt in of itself is not a grounds for rejecting the conclusion.

It is true that people can naysay an argument, they can reject it, irrationally, they can drag their heels and go into full denial....  but that has nothing to do with actually refuting an argument....  

Quote:

Based on my observation, many of you have spent much time refuting, but have not come to meaningful ultimate truths.

In other words, we have arguments that refute your wishful thinking, and you don't like that.

Quote:

(Except, you do conclude, that this universe was created out of nothing, which, would make that an ultimate truth.

I don't think many atheists believe in ex nihilo creation. If you'd like to point out someone here who does, by all means, do so. If you can't, then you'll have to withdraw your claim.

The reality is that it's usually the theist who believes in ex nihilo creation. Atheists don't believe in creation at all, and only a small subset believe in a universe that came from zero dimensions.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Show me your

AiiA wrote:

Show me your logical arguments. So far you've made nothing but naked claims. You have not shown any evidence to support any of your claims.

I will not waste time giving you my arguments because you do not believe in God, so we will not agree on anything anyway. So, here was my path.

Prerequisite: There is a God.

Based on prerequisite: Start learning about more about God.
Observe. Observe the world. Observe people. Observe yourself.
Learn. Learn about people. Learn about mythology. Learn about religion. Learn about specific religions.
Sit down. Collect thoughts. Meditate on knowledge. Compare.
Make an informed decision. Take a step of faith.

That is an outline of the path I took. Of course, it was not that ordered, but all the steps were there. If you choose to take the path, you will be able to fill in the blanks. To understand where I am coming from you would have to take the journey yourself and make your own discoveries...because no matter what I say, you will not believe me unless you experience it yourself. As I said before, I bet you will be pleasantly surprised with what you find and eternally greatful.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:AiiA

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
Show me your logical arguments. So far you've made nothing but naked claims. You have not shown any evidence to support any of your claims.
I will not waste time giving you my arguments because you do not believe in God, so we will not agree on anything anyway.

The point isn't that we'd disagree, it's that we'd have a good reason to reject your argument, based on a basic error in logic.

And you know that is precisely what will happen if you post any argument.

Hence, your pathetic dodge.

 

Quote:
Prerequisite: There is a God.

This probably IS your argument: you just beg the question of 'god's' existence, leaving behind the logical problems altogether....

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: (Except, you do

Quote:
(Except, you do conclude, that this universe was created out of nothing,

I, and a majority of this board has never made such a claim, in factwe spend a whole lot of time telling people like you that we don't make such a claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!

Quote:
So, I guess that's one of those truths that isn't relative,

Truth isn't relative, how we interpret it is. 

 At least, this is what I believe. Everyone else, you should ask them.

Quote:
Once you have refuted everything, will you have anything of value left?

How does one refute everything? Wait, are you saying there is no actual truth?

Quote:
But, if you believe we started from nothing, perhaps you are content with the idea of ending with nothing too.

Cute. Maybe you can tell us what god made the universe from? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mindspread wrote: I'd call

mindspread wrote:

I'd call her a sadistic bitch.

Negative alert. Negative. Anyone. Anyone? Hello? This is a negative comment right? Or am I just delusional?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Cute. Maybe

Ophios wrote:
Cute. Maybe you can tell us what god made the universe from?
No, I can't. Should I ask you, or God?


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow, since my last posts a

Wow, since my last posts a few hours ago, this thread has literally burst open. 

"Sugarfree, why so mad at atheist debaters? Have you ever been an atheist, and now you refuse to accept it as the only logical fact simply because something horrible happened in your life?" (yes, for those who didn't get it, it's an inverse of the "atheists are mad at god" argument)

Sugarfree, as much as I'd like to have an impersonal chat, I am forced to adhere to some of my fellow atheist posters' conclusion: that the only arguments you have currently brought forward match the "it makes sense to me" pattern.

I would be curious on how you respond to my last two posts, I've shown some things there out of your religion that really shouldn't make sense even to you. I'll go on with this line and bring forward to you some other things that I'm really curious how they "make sense" to you:

- is there predestination? if yes, then free will goes bye-bye, if not, then prophecies go bye-bye; the answer should be a simple "yes" or "no"

- are there a) free will and b) sin in Heaven? If there are both, then Heaven cannot be much different from what Earth is now; perhaps immortality granted, but not much else. If there is sin, but not free will, my apologies, but that sounds more like Hell to me. If there are none, that looks like we're going to be reincarnated in machines after next birth (metaphorically). If there is free will, but not sin, this means that there exists a state of combination between existence of free will and non-existence of sin, meaning that the argument most theists bring forth (that sin is a result of free will) is false. I believe to have exhausted all possibilities, await your answer

- what color were Adam and Eve's eyes? (and in case you haven't realized, I'm asking because from that color(s), the whole diversity we now see must have originated); principially answering this will also answer others (like what color was their hair or skin, did they have that typical Asian skin fold at the eyelid or not, etc.), and it should be obvious that a wrong answer would lead to bizzarre conclusions

- will merituous people that have never heard of Jesus in their entire lives get to heaven or hell? if hell, then divine justice goes bye-bye, if heaven, than it's actually people preaching the message of Jesus that are condemning us all to hell

- is hell permanent or temporary? if permanent, the punishment greatly outweighs the crime, and so long divine justice, if temporary, then why should we worry?

More to come in a few short minutes.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: sugarfree

todangst wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
Show me your logical arguments. So far you've made nothing but naked claims. You have not shown any evidence to support any of your claims.
I will not waste time giving you my arguments because you do not believe in God, so we will not agree on anything anyway.

The point isn't that we'd disagree, it's that we'd have a good reason to reject your argument, based on a basic error in logic.

And you know that is precisely what will happen if you post any argument.

Hence, your pathetic dodge.

 

I'm wondering if sugerfree agrees on anything with any theist? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
OphiosI, and a majority of

Ophios wrote:
I, and a majority of this board has never made such a claim, in factwe spend a whole lot of time telling people like you that we don't make such a claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
Okay, then please tell me what you believe about that. I'm curious. How do you believe the universe was created?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
mindspread wrote:
I'd call her a sadistic bitch.
Negative alert. Negative. Anyone. Anyone? Hello? This is a negative comment right?

So? What's your point? If someone is a sadistic bitch, then perhaps the term is accurate. 

 

Quote:
 

Or am I just delusional?

 

I'd say self delusional. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Ophios

sugarfree wrote:
Ophios wrote:
I, and a majority of this board has never made such a claim, in factwe spend a whole lot of time telling people like you that we don't make such a claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
Okay, then please tell me what you believe about that. I'm curious. How do you believe the universe was created?

Basic big bang idea, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at different hypothesis (SP?). So it's really not my area.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: 2+2=4

todangst wrote:
2+2=4

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.

So please, seriously, are you guys relativists or do you believe in absolute truth? I honestly can't tell. I believe in absolute truth. Can you plainly tell me whether you believe in one or the other? Is it that you believe scientific truth is absolute, but moral truth is relative? But, no, some moral truths are absolute. How is one supposed to know the difference?

todangst wrote:
I don't think many atheists believe in ex nihilo creation. If you'd like to point out someone here who does, by all means, do so. If you can't, then you'll have to withdraw your claim.
Okay, I was under the impression that you accepted science, which would be the big bang, so what was before that and where did the stuff that when "bang" come from?


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:  I will

sugarfree wrote:

 I will not waste time giving you my arguments because you do not believe in God, so we will not agree on anything anyway. So, here was my path. Prerequisite: There is a God. Based on prerequisite: Start learning about more about God. Observe. Observe the world. Observe people. Observe yourself. Learn. Learn about people. Learn about mythology. Learn about religion. Learn about specific religions. Sit down. Collect thoughts. Meditate on knowledge. Compare. Make an informed decision. Take a step of faith. That is an outline of the path I took. Of course, it was not that ordered, but all the steps were there. If you choose to take the path, you will be able to fill in the blanks. To understand where I am coming from you would have to take the journey yourself and make your own discoveries...because no matter what I say, you will not believe me unless you experience it yourself. As I said before, I bet you will be pleasantly surprised with what you find and eternally greatful.

Why is god the prerequisite?  Who says?  How do we know he's the prerequisite?  The whole reason you found god at the end of your path is because you based your entire path on him. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: sugarfree

Ophios wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Ophios wrote:
I, and a majority of this board has never made such a claim, in factwe spend a whole lot of time telling people like you that we don't make such a claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
Okay, then please tell me what you believe about that. I'm curious. How do you believe the universe was created?

Basic big bang idea, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at different hypothesis (SP?). So it's really not my area.

Why does it even have to be created in the first place? There are several cosmological accounts from real cosomlogists that do not invoke anything at all like creation, such as Brane Theory or Hawking's finite but boundless model.

Big bang theory isn't a creation account, by the way:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: rexlunae

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
When challenged to evaluate other faiths, even those that are very similar to your own, first you reject them without even a moment's hesitation
I have already been down that road, have chosen christianity as a result.

I think it was todangst who stated a thread on this, how come that almost all theists on here claims to have critically analyzed all other religions including their own? Well, I supposed that would be true, if by critical analysis you mean reading a few pages of the other holy text, realizing that it doesn't agree with your holy text and throw out the other one based on dogmatic belief that your holy text is the true one.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: sugarfree

todangst wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
mindspread wrote:
I'd call her a sadistic bitch.
Negative alert. Negative. Anyone. Anyone? Hello? This is a negative comment right?

So? What's your point? If someone is a sadistic bitch, then perhaps the term is accurate. 

 

Quote:
 

Or am I just delusional?

 

I'd say self delusional. 

So, you are telling me that morally, to you, it is okay to make inflamatory rude remarks about people. At least, in this case, relatively speaking, its okay.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree: Don't attempt to

Sugarfree: Don't attempt to defend Mother Theresa. I think you will find the that if one does not hold the same beliefs as Mother Theresa (concerning the purpose of pain and suffering) one might come to very difference conclusions as to her character.

Granted. You may be able to defend her.. but really, but, I would contend that there might not be much fruit born of a such an argument.

'Good' people exists even as 'Bad' people exists.

SIDENOTE: Careful. In the general sense. Take care.

Sincerely,

Fellow, unmarked, Theist. Smiling


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: todangst

sugarfree wrote:
todangst wrote:
2+2=4

 

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.

So please, seriously, are you guys relativists or do you believe in absolute truth? I honestly can't tell. I believe in absolute truth.

Excuse me, but can you tell me how this responds to my point? You asserted that probably every argument could be refuted. I am now challenging that claim. Show me how you could probably refute every argument.

  

todangst wrote:
I don't think many atheists believe in ex nihilo creation. If you'd like to point out someone here who does, by all means, do so. If you can't, then you'll have to withdraw your claim.

 

Quote:
 

Okay, I was under the impression that you accepted science,

I do. The problem is that you don't have a clue as to what science actually says. You don't really know what you're talking about here.

 

Quote:
 

which would be the big bang,

 

Big bang theory is NOT  a creation account.

"A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all."

- Brian Greene "The Fabric Of The Cosmos."

Big bang theory only tells us about our universe from 'planck time'. Big bang theory can tell us nothing about the universe prior to this time. (this is what grand unified theories seek to accomplish)

"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period (and nothing can be known from this period from the perspective of big bang theory).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html

 

Quote:

so what was before that and where did the stuff that when "bang" come from?

There are many theories that deal with this question.  Let's review: 

  Common misconception: Either the universe was created, or it has always existed.

False dichotomy. There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.

A singularity ("something timeless" prior to planck time) does not necessarily speak to ex nihilo creation - and again, big bang theory on its own, at the present, cannot tell us anything about the 'origin' of the singularity or if it has an origin at all.

I think people naturally hold that if the universe 'began' in a singularity, then it follows that it was 'created' or that it was 'caused'. But I think that cosmologists hold that it is an error to conflate the idea of a singularity with all existence being created ex nihlo.

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html

One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."

In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

Another third scenario option: Brane Theory

The Myth of the Beginning of Time String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state By Gabriele Veneziano

More on the theory:

'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "

The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time." This collision would provide the original energy. Brane theory holds that there would be no beginning or end to existence.

  Common misconception: Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics.

Theistic ex nihilo arguments are in fact irrational, magical explanations that violate physics.

However, interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.

But where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

Ok then, where does the energy come from?

As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:

a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.

b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.

See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3

c) See above comments on Brane theory. 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: So, you

sugarfree wrote:
So, you are telling me that morally, to you, it is okay to make inflamatory rude remarks about people.

It's not morally OK, but it's hardly the end of the world.

Quote:

At least, in this case, relatively speaking, its okay.

Look, you know very littlet about intersubjective/relativistic accounts of morality, so please stop embarrassing yourself here.

If you ever bring context into account for your own actions, you are invoking relativism yourself.... do you realize that? 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: sugarfree

KSMB wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
When challenged to evaluate other faiths, even those that are very similar to your own, first you reject them without even a moment's hesitation
I have already been down that road, have chosen christianity as a result.

I think it was todangst who stated a thread on this, how come that almost all theists on here claims to have critically analyzed all other religions including their own? Well, I supposed that would be true, if by critical analysis you mean reading a few pages of the other holy text, realizing that it doesn't agree with your holy text and throw out the other one based on dogmatic belief that your holy text is the true one.

 

Its one of the common lies theists tell themselves - that they somehow entered into religion objectively, critically, when in reality, they were inculcated into their religion as infants.

 You see this self delusion repeated ad nauseum on the internet.... 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'