Questions about God... theists answer these!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Questions about God... theists answer these!

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.

15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]

17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - and ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]

21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG

23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]

25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.

(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys

28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? -

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? -

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? -

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG

39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God ? Why would it be too late? - IG

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond

43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778

44. Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give "later man" nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation. Some say pleasure. Where is that in Genesis exactly? All mammals have nipples as well, are theirs pleasureful for them too? Many men don't find their nipples pleasurable at all. - IG

45. How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know. - IG

46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]

47. Did Noah have fish onboard? Salt or Fresh? Since fresh water fish would die in salt, and salt water fish would die in fresh, only one type of fish would survive. Yet....?" - Frank Monaco

48. Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent God need help from man or angels to spread his word or do acts? - IG [Note: Some say God doesn't need help. But apparently he does.] - IG

49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]

50. If God wants us to live right and choose "the good," why did he create evil? (Isaiah 45:6,7) Not to mention he already knows which people are not going to choose "the good" so why create those people in the first place? It seems that many people are born to go to Hell. - IG ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn?t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
(Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)

51. I hear Christians all the time speaking of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell, if this is true does God have limitations of power? Man only conducts wars because of our limitations of power and foresight. God has both all-power and all-knowledge, no reason for war of any kind. - IG

52. The Bible is full of phrases beginning with, "and the lord saw". Didn't he know before hand? - IG

53. How can a psychologist condone belief in something not proven to exist, when people are put into mental institutions on a daily basis for the same thing? i.e. aliens, fairies, imaginary people (Multiple Personality Disorders..)? - Dan Denton [Note: I'm sure that some of the pious believe that they are improperly placed there as well Dan. Smiling]

54. If Christians say they know God exists and that he will work miracles, what do they need faith for? Faith is not knowing. - IG

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG

56. If God really wants us to know him, why doesn't he place the knowledge of him in our minds at birth? The same way many theists believe that God implants our sense of right and wrong in us a right birth. - IG

57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]

59. Why can't God appear before everyone at the same time? Everyone in the world would then "know" he exists and not have solely "believe". And please, don't say he already tried that. Surely a God knows exactly what to do to convince a measly human of his existence. - IG

60. According to the New Testament Matthew 5:17 says "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has Happened." So since Jesus has not returned the "Law" is still in effect, so why aren't we still burning witches, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, killing homosexuals, ostracizing people that work on the Sabbath (nurses, doctors etc.), flinging blood onto the horns of the alter, pulling off the heads of small birds, and don't forget human sacrifice to God (Leviticus 27 P.28 )? -- Sheila L. Chambers

61. If there is freewill in Heaven yet everyone has chosen good and is happy, isn't that proof that God could have made us with freewill, choosing good ( God ) and still being happy on Earth? - Dennis Hendrix [Note: In other words, evil didn't have to exist after all. Hey wait, even in Heaven apparently, evil can exist. At least for a short while. Satan became evil and was in heaven. Apparently he even had enough time to form an Army against God. Wow. Maybe Heaven won't be as peaceful as many believe.]

62. Why does God have a plan? Man is limited in power so we make plans because we are not all-knowing nor all-powerful. If God has a plan, isn't he reduced to a mere finite being? - IG

63. How could the all-merciful/loving God watch billions of his children burn over and over again for eternity? - IG [Note: Of course this is geared to those that believe in a fiery hell. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in a fiery Hell.]

64. Before reading and writing were invented (5000BC), on what basis did God use to judge the people who died before the Hebrew and Greek text (BIBLE) were written? -- [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. Smiling]

65. Many Christians tell me that I will "burn in hell". If I have a soul, how can a soul burn? Aren't souls non-physical entities? - IG [Note: Some Christians groups believe that you will be given new bodies after judgement. However, if true, what's the significance of a spirit in the first place?]

66. How can one hold to the barbaric belief that something has to DIE in order to appease a god for a bad deed? -- Nickolaus Wing [Note: Because an old book says so Nick.]

67. Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place? -- Terry Clark [Note: This actually happened to a friend of mine. Not even God himself could console her.]

68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. -

69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma

70. Ten to twenty percent of all women who discover they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. Also, it is estimated that anywhere from 14 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seeing this is all part of God 's plan, does this make God the world's number one abortion provider? - Jim

71. What if, when you get to Heaven, you saw God causing pain and suffering out of anger or for the purpose of entertaining himself. What if he required people in heaven to praise and worship him non-stop even to the point of causing his worshipers discomfort, pain and boredom. What if, when he was bored, angry, or jealous, he would create natural disasters to make himself feel better. Would you still follow him? - Fernando [Note: Of course they would Fernando, many people followed Hitler out of fear as well.]

72. In Leviticus, the bible condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", giving some Christians a reason to hate, harass, torture and kill gays and even picket their funderals with " God hates fags" signs. In the same book of the bible the eating of shellfish is equally an "abomination". Are these Christians planning to go after the patrons of Red Lobster next? - [Note: hee-hee, that's all I can say. Jewish Law states that eating Fish without scales is an abomination and thus the Shark is one among the list. However, sharks do have scales, Placoid scales, one of the many reasons why a shark is called a Fish .]

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. -

74. If one could prove to you incontrovertibly that Jesus and God were all human fabrications would still believe? And why? - LOGICnREASON [Note: If you say yes. Then you are not concerned with the truth, you simply WANT to believe; and if you WANT to believe, indeed, there is nothing anyone can tell you..]

75. It is often said that God allows evil because one could not meaningfully appreciate good without experiencing its opposite. Why is it necessary to experience the opposite of something in order to appreciate it? Must I experience death in order to meaningfully appreciate life? -excidius

76. Bible literalists want you to believe that God's Word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If this is the case, why was Jesus fond of explaining things in parable and metaphor? Was Jesus literally discussing the biology of mustard seeds, or was the mustard seed parable meant to be interpreted figuratively as faith? -excidius

77. Liberal Christians say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted figuratively as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept? -excidius

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless

79. Considering how Leviticus is considered old law, and that Christians do not obey it anymore, why do they always use it to defend homosexuality being an "abomination"? -Bohorquez

80. If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that? - Timothy Campbell (http://www.tc123.com)

81. The large majority of people who have ever existed could not have learned of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And many people afterwards have found other religions or no religion at all to be more convincing, sometimes while being very virtuous. Do all these people really deserve eternal torment because of that? -- lpetrich

82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich

83. Is it reasonable for the Creator and Ruler of such a vast Universe to be preoccupied with the sexuality of a species living on a tiny little planet? -- lpetrich

84. If the Christian god was all loving and all knowing why did he let religious figures such as Mohammed or Gautama Budda be born, knowing that they would mislead people from the 'true' faith and trick the majority of the world's population into burning forever in hell (in fact, if Islam didn't start, most of the middle east would probably be Christian). It would simple to use the Holy Spirit to guide them to Jesus and spread the 'true' faith. If the Holy Spirit exits, it certainly isn't doing it's job!

85. If one is obliged to follow all the teachings of the bible then why is engaging in homosexuality or adultery any worse than "suffering a witch to live", "muzzling the ox that treadeth the corn", "reaping the corners of thy field", "marring the corners of they beard", "plowing with an oxen and an ass", "hating thy brother in thy heart" or "eating frogs, shellfish and eels" ?

86. Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? -- Steever

87. Why did this alleged god create humans as an animal form of life that gets sick and dies and experiences pain and has a limited mind when 'it' could have created humans as a form of pure energy or of some indestructible material or whatever, and was totally ?sinless? and had ?pure? thought? If a god was omnipotent 'it' could have easily have done this. --AI

88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI

89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI

This list was compiled by the Infidel Guy with submissions from many members of the atheist community.

PICK THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO ANSWER, AND POST IT HERE...

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
Claims

jcgadfly wrote:

Sure, Upside.

You believe your God has all the right answers. So did the guys who flew the planes into the WTC.

And yes, I have a problem with a deity whose first option to solve problems is homicide and suicide. Why don't you?

You and other theist come here and say "My god has all the answers to your questions. A lot of them can be found in his word." If you're going to make that claim you shouldn't be shocked that people are going to ask you to support it. You make the claims and run from an opportunity to support that claim? Interesting.

The statement "God has all the answers to your questions," obviously is conditional on whether you have faith in God, and faith that the Bible is from God, of God.  That would be my point on why a theists ability to fulfill your desire for answers will always be inadequate on any question.  You do not have the faith in the Bible in the first place. 

I'm just really hesitant, with good reason, to use a book you believe is crap, to defend or answer any questions.  See the delimma?  

Were you ever really a christian, or did you jump on the band wagon?  Were you merely a christian on the surface or was this something you truly believe you owned and then disowned?  

I am not running, not yet anyways.  I spent my first couple posts, and part of this one to develop my position on the answering of all 50+ questions posed on this thread.  Now that I have done so, sure i'll discuss questions with you.  Let's take one question at a time, or no more than three at a time, just to keep this organized and to keep the size of post under 500 words or so.  What will be the first one(s), what are you hung up on the most?   

Upside


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

Upside wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Sure, Upside.

You believe your God has all the right answers. So did the guys who flew the planes into the WTC.

And yes, I have a problem with a deity whose first option to solve problems is homicide and suicide. Why don't you?

You and other theist come here and say "My god has all the answers to your questions. A lot of them can be found in his word." If you're going to make that claim you shouldn't be shocked that people are going to ask you to support it. You make the claims and run from an opportunity to support that claim? Interesting.

The statement "God has all the answers to your questions," obviously is conditional on whether you have faith in God, and faith that the Bible is from God, of God.  That would be my point on why a theists ability to fulfill your desire for answers will always be inadequate on any question.  You do not have the faith in the Bible in the first place. 

I'm just really hesitant, with good reason, to use a book you believe is crap, to defend or answer any questions.  See the delimma?  

Were you ever really a christian, or did you jump on the band wagon?  Were you merely a christian on the surface or was this something you truly believe you owned and then disowned?  

I am not running, not yet anyways.  I spent my first couple posts, and part of this one to develop my position on the answering of all 50+ questions posed on this thread.  Now that I have done so, sure i'll discuss questions with you.  Let's take one question at a time, or no more than three at a time, just to keep this organized and to keep the size of post under 500 words or so.  What will be the first one(s), what are you hung up on the most?   

So I would have to accept that God's answers are true before he would give then to me? That sounds like I'd have to have to already believe in God before I could believe in God.

I'm not sure if any answer I would give about my Christian experience would satisfy you. You seem to be a person who goes by "If a person doesn't believe as I do, they were never really Christians".

I really don't give a rip about the questions on the OP. I doubt if may of them could be answered outside of "I don't know" (but that won't keep a lot of theists from providing BS answers because an honest "I don't know" scares the crap out of them).

You want to know about my former Christianity? My pm is always open. Ask there/

"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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's funny how difficult it is for the theist

 

Upside wrote:

 

Were you ever really a christian, or did you jump on the band wagon?  Were you merely a christian on the surface or was this something you truly believe you owned and then disowned?  

 

 

To comprehend that is possible to truly be a christian and to truly lose your faith. It's a real event, Upside, make no mistake about it. I became a christian at about 6 or 7 probably earlier. And I loved god as much as it's possible for a kid to love. I lost my faith as I gained my empathy. The more I grew into myself, the more I found the bible god was a man-made bully and the violence and hate I daily read were a reflection of the worst and the most cowardly parts of mankind. Later than I should have, I finally realised my long-ago child had been deceived.

It took until I was in my late 30s even into my 40s to begin to truly escape the threats and make a judgment based on personal integrity and rational consideration. The intervening years were a torment of doubt and fear. I may have lost my faith but I've never lost my anger.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
PM?

jcgadfly wrote:

So I would have to accept that God's answers are true before he would give then to me? That sounds like I'd have to have to already believe in God before I could believe in God.

I'm not sure if any answer I would give about my Christian experience would satisfy you. You seem to be a person who goes by "If a person doesn't believe as I do, they were never really Christians".

I really don't give a rip about the questions on the OP. I doubt if may of them could be answered outside of "I don't know" (but that won't keep a lot of theists from providing BS answers because an honest "I don't know" scares the crap out of them).

You want to know about my former Christianity? My pm is always open. Ask there/

That's not what I said.  I said you'd have to have faith in God (even if merely possibility he exists which atheists don't) to get answers.  Make sense?  I mean how could you get answers from someone who you didn't believe existed??

I am a person who...i'm not sure after 3 posts you get me yet.  I'd be satisfied by your christian experience whatever it was really, I kept asking because you didn't answer the first times.  I don't have the perfect conversion, typical, ideal picture in my mind.  What is PM?  You have your own blog or something? 

Haha, well put about the questions.  It can be scary not having all the answers, anytime really, walking down the dark alley, stranded in the ocean, or as you said if terrorists were in the US. 

 

Upside


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:To

Atheistextremist wrote:

To comprehend that is possible to truly be a christian and to truly lose your faith. It's a real event, Upside, make no mistake about it. I became a christian at about 6 or 7 probably earlier. And I loved god as much as it's possible for a kid to love. I lost my faith as I gained my empathy. The more I grew into myself, the more I found the bible god was a man-made bully and the violence and hate I daily read were a reflection of the worst and the most cowardly parts of mankind. Later than I should have, I finally realised my long-ago child had been deceived.

It took until I was in my late 30s even into my 40s to begin to truly escape the threats and make a judgment based on personal integrity and rational consideration. The intervening years were a torment of doubt and fear. I may have lost my faith but I've never lost my anger.

Second time I have heard God called evil or bully type remarks.  I'm sorry that's how you see God.  I do see a God that punishes if that is what you are talking about.  I'd be interested into more detail about the bullying, where God was a bully.  There are times in the OT where it gets pretty harsh.  

When it comes to empathy, it is hard hearing a story or beliefs that do not coincide with yours.  I think you've had a long battle through it all and as you said made a judgment on personal integrity and rational consideration over 30 years or so.  You've probably heard all the arguments and sentiments regarding why God is better than atheism.  I think the ski mask think was pretty raw, though I would not say inviting. 

Anyways, i'd like to hear more about the early decision at 6/7, what were the turning points that shot you towards atheism?  What do you hate about theists and what do you like about atheists?  What do you like about theists, surely there is something since atheists believe in doing good to all right? Answer if you wish, take care and later on ski mask man. 

Upside


Hungry Wolf
Hungry Wolf's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2008-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Dear Atheistexrtemist ^_^ :

Dear Atheistexrtemist ^_^ :
 

 

Quote:
You believe the koran is the ultimate expression of logic

That is true ^_^

 

 

But what does this have to do with anything ^_^ ?

 

I didn't ask you to believe the Qura'an as the "ultimate expression of logic"   ^_~

 

 

Quote:
That it contains no assertions

So ?

 

 

Quote:
and in quoting it you are immune to making assumptions

And why do I need to quote it ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
What can we possibly say to each other

hehehehhehehhehehe

 

I doubt you read me first reply here hehehehehehehhe

 

You might just scanned it .. But reading and understanding it, I bet you didn't hehehehehhe  ^^

 

At the begging I said :

 

* 5 - The purpose of the my answer is answer the 'challenging' questions (as might an atheist thinks) .. The purpose of my answer is not to convince nor to drive atheist to believe in God ^_^ .. And it is not for the purpose of debating .. Therefore, I will frequently quote from Qura'an and Islamic narrations ..

If it was a debate, I'll make sure nothing will come from Qura'an or from Islamic narrations .. I'll stick to the common land between us ^_^ *

 

So, your whole complain has no meaning ^_^ .. I know the 'rule' clearly .. I thought all of you know the 'rule' already .. However, it seems there are atheists who doesn't know or understand the rule >_<

 

I can crash your science and theories that make you so confident about your atheism, and I expect you to be able to sweep away my belief if atheism is the truth ^_^

 

This what we can say or prove to each other ^_~

 

 

Quote:
Talk to Butter

I'm doing that ^_^

 

 

Quote:
He's nicer than I am

^_^

 

 

Quote:
But expect him to pull you apart like a roast chicken

I'm expecting him to do so .. And I'll be aware of his ability ^_^

 

 

Thanks for the advice ^^

 

 

Quote:
As for your underlying nasty streak

Yes ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
the central tenet of much of your post is a fallacy from force

^_^

 

 

Quote:
Do what allah says or be tortured in this life and the next

I've never said that ^_^

 

And I'm not allowed to judge who is going to be tortured in next life and who is not !

 

We ( Muslims ) have been told that a human might follow all of his life the work of people of hell .. However, before he dies he do the work of people of heaven and he will be in heaven ..

And a human might follow all of his life the work of the people of heaven .. However, before he dies he do the work of the people of hell and he will be in hell ..

 

Many Muslims will be tortured in hell if you don't know .. Islam or believing in Allah doesn't give you the permission to do or say whatever you want ..

 

FYI, people who didn't heard about Allah or Islam, who had a corrupted image about Islam, who died before hearing about Islam, and many others will have special test in the next life .. The result will determine their fate ..

 

No body, absolutely no body, has the right to tell someone that he will be in hell !

 

We say atheists will be in hell ( but this is a general talk ) .. I CANNOT say you, Atheistexrtemist ,will be in hell .. 

 

Atheists will go to hell = general talk = No conditions should be applied to any one ==> We can say it ..

 

A member in the forum will go to hell = Individual case = I have no idea about this member .. I have no clue what he has been through .. I have no idea what is inside his heart .. I have no idea if Islam was delivered correctly to him .. Lots of unknown conditions ..

 

Only Allah knows your fate .. And you will find out when your life is finished ^_^

 

 

Quote:
  I don't have to prove allah is there, you say

Yup ^_^ .. Because I'm answering the questions only ..

 

And there is no question among those asks to prove the existence of God ^_~

 

 

Quote:
  but if you don't believe me you will be tormented eternally

Nope .. I didn't say that ..

 

Your are just imaging hehehehehehehehhehe

 

 

Quote:
  Anyone theist who posts bodily threats against atheists on this site will get short shrift from me

^_^

 

Have I threaten anybody ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
This weak and gutless argument exposes islam for the rotten apple that it is

^_^

 

Would you please judge me or Islam based on what I write or say, not what do you think I wrote or said ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
Then there's the fact the reason you are here is not to learn or even influence for good the evil dhimmis allah has chosen to not know him

...................

 

 

Quote:
Instead you are here to score brownie points with your sky daddy

Nope .. I'm here to show you that you examine and analyze what religions say, but you don't do the same when it comes to science and you just accept what science says ^_^

 

 

Quote:
How am I going with my character analysis now, Hungry?

^_^

 

 

Still long way to go my dear ^_^

 

 

long way to go ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Teefuckinghee

^_^

 

 

 

 

 

^_^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ja ne ~

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Science involves

 

Hungry Wolf wrote:

Nope .. I'm here to show you that you examine and analyze what religions say, but you don't do the same when it comes to science and you just accept what science says ^_^

 

broadly accepting the best model of what can be known based on the available proof while remaining ready to change your mind at a moment's notice.

Islam (and christianity) involve believing what you are told on pain of death/torment.

No one here would not change their scientific position based on powerful new scientific evidence.

But will they change their minds on the basis of no evidence backed up with the threat of torture? I think not. If you fail to see this distinction you are being obtuse.

Science in and of itself is the examination of what can be known on the basis of repeated experiment. When science cannot provide the answers the correct position is to say you do not know - not to start insisting on an argument from complexity as you are.

Comparatively, religion is dogma based on assumptions of a supernatural 'reality' for which there is no proof at all.

I read your views on the near solar system on your thread with Butter. I recommend your read some Kepler. You might find his work instructive.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


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

Upside wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

To comprehend that is possible to truly be a christian and to truly lose your faith. It's a real event, Upside, make no mistake about it. I became a christian at about 6 or 7 probably earlier. And I loved god as much as it's possible for a kid to love. I lost my faith as I gained my empathy. The more I grew into myself, the more I found the bible god was a man-made bully and the violence and hate I daily read were a reflection of the worst and the most cowardly parts of mankind. Later than I should have, I finally realised my long-ago child had been deceived.

It took until I was in my late 30s even into my 40s to begin to truly escape the threats and make a judgment based on personal integrity and rational consideration. The intervening years were a torment of doubt and fear. I may have lost my faith but I've never lost my anger.

Second time I have heard God called evil or bully type remarks.  I'm sorry that's how you see God.  I do see a God that punishes if that is what you are talking about.  I'd be interested into more detail about the bullying, where God was a bully.  There are times in the OT where it gets pretty harsh.  

When it comes to empathy, it is hard hearing a story or beliefs that do not coincide with yours.  I think you've had a long battle through it all and as you said made a judgment on personal integrity and rational consideration over 30 years or so.  You've probably heard all the arguments and sentiments regarding why God is better than atheism.  I think the ski mask think was pretty raw, though I would not say inviting. 

Anyways, i'd like to hear more about the early decision at 6/7, what were the turning points that shot you towards atheism?  What do you hate about theists and what do you like about atheists?  What do you like about theists, surely there is something since atheists believe in doing good to all right? Answer if you wish, take care and later on ski mask man. 

You're half right - I see a God that punishes capriciously and doesn't fit the punishment to the crime.

Yahweh tends to see death as the solution to all problems. That makes him evil, imo. Here comes my evidence.

Pick up sticks on Friday evening to start a fire for your family - death.

Be in his chosen people's way - death.

Be helpful but in the wrong tribe (the poor bastard who kept the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the wagon)  - death.

Love the same gender as yourself (as you were created to do) - death

Don't see enough evidence to believe in him - death and a punishment filled afterlife.

If you threaten and carry out death or other horrible punishments to make sure you get your way - you're a bully.

It's pretty simple, really.

"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


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
References

jcgadfly wrote:

You're half right - I see a God that punishes capriciously and doesn't fit the punishment to the crime.

Yahweh tends to see death as the solution to all problems. That makes him evil, imo. Here comes my evidence.

Pick up sticks on Friday evening to start a fire for your family - death.

Be in his chosen people's way - death.

Be helpful but in the wrong tribe (the poor bastard who kept the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the wagon)  - death.

Love the same gender as yourself (as you were created to do) - death

Don't see enough evidence to believe in him - death and a punishment filled afterlife.

If you threaten and carry out death or other horrible punishments to make sure you get your way - you're a bully.

It's pretty simple, really.

Can you cite your references?  With those descriptions it is hard to zero in on what moment or event you are talking about.  The way you write that up, it sounds simple indeed. 

Upside


luca (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hi everyone in the forum.

Hi everyone in the forum. It's from a long time I follow this thread, and now I feel I want to partecipate.

@hungry wolf

Could you tell us, us in the forum, from where are you from, please?
Probably is not polite to categorize people, I mean, how would you feel if someone attached a label on you?

Quote:

I've noticed that people can be classified into three groups :

Another major problem is here:
Quote:

I used to believe in planet / spherical earth until 2005

Now this is a pretty extreme position, could you motivate that?
It seems also that you support death penalty, am I right?

About what you have said about science: sorry, but science is not a religion, is not something you believe in, so please read something and understand what science is before (well, it's too late...) writing wrong things.

Also I want to try to 'rebut', as you say, your answers, but there is a problem.

From your answers I deduct that you take the quran as true, but you have to prove that. There are very basic question that you need to answer before you could simply write these answers: there are thousands of religions, why is yours better than the others? And the "challenge" you talk about, isn't it too beautiful to be true? There are a lot of christian currents that sustain this challenge too, but the problem is: what sense has it? why a god would need to put a challenge? (please, don't answer "submission to allah" or "it is an exam" -- go deeper than that)
And why do you challenge us by telling us to not ask you about allah's existence?

That said there is very little to distinguish you from a troll (and im not the first to have said that).
If you accept suggestions, I recommend you to read (eventually read again) the precedent pages of this thread. It's not the quantity that matters, but the quality.

@upside

What are you before accepting a religion? When it all started? Where you born believer? Because if like us you was born without knowledge of religion, then you was atheist, so someone teached you God, and that means an atheist could comprehend this god.

Last thing: really do you need references to death as a consequence of a crime in the bible? have you ever just looked at the cover of a bible?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Welcome to the forum, luca.

Welcome to the forum, luca.

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


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

Upside wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You're half right - I see a God that punishes capriciously and doesn't fit the punishment to the crime.

Yahweh tends to see death as the solution to all problems. That makes him evil, imo. Here comes my evidence.

Pick up sticks on Friday evening to start a fire for your family - death.

Be in his chosen people's way - death.

Be helpful but in the wrong tribe (the poor bastard who kept the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the wagon)  - death.

Love the same gender as yourself (as you were created to do) - death

Don't see enough evidence to believe in him - death and a punishment filled afterlife.

If you threaten and carry out death or other horrible punishments to make sure you get your way - you're a bully.

It's pretty simple, really.

Can you cite your references?  With those descriptions it is hard to zero in on what moment or event you are talking about.  The way you write that up, it sounds simple indeed. 

Sorry for the delay - directing two shows.

death for picking up sticks on the sabbath - Numbers 15:32-36

Loving who you were created to love (same gender) Lev. 18:21-23

death for being in God's chosen's way - too many battles in the OT to count

looking into a "sacred" box - 1 Sam 6:19

attempting to steady said box - 1 Chron 13: 8-10

Punishing for non-belief while withholding evidence for such belief - basis of Christianity, is it not?

"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


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Please read, OP

 

1)      He very well may not have. Much like the precise numeric lick-requirement necessary to obtain tootsie-pop related chocolaty goodness, the world may never know. And even if he did, people aren’t perfect.

2)      ‘Cause it probably isn’t true. It’s probably allegory.

3)      Well, most modern humans originated in Asia, actually. (Since about half of the worlds population was born there, so each of those individuals “originated” there). But seriously, yes, you are correct. The oldest ancestor that has in common with us certain crucial features came lived in Africa.

4)      Heaven is the state of being good. Like all truly worthy goals, it cannot be attained, only sought, and only while we are here. All symbolism and metaphor for concepts most atheists agree with fundamentally. Like “doing genuinely good acts brings the purest kind of satisfaction,” and “doing something truly abhorrent brings the coldest kind of apathy.” Think about it as hot and cold. Cold is just the absence of heat. Hell is the absence of good. It is not a real place.

5)      God is a concept, an idea that represents the inexplicable, as well as all things good. In my world-view, the mysterious is a part of the good, and God is the concept that encompasses both. He is not an alternative explanation; he is a lack of explanation. “He” has no emotions.

6)      Sin must enter the world. Without the cold, heat is meaningless. One cannot feel good if one cannot do evil.

7)      Hell is not synonymous with eternal torture; rather, the pure absence of any compassion, love, or kindness (all good traits) in ones heart is the worst feeling possible (the inability to feel is worse than bad feelings).

Cool      I am confused. Where is the question? I suppose I shall respond to the only question I see. Yes, I do see what you are saying.

9)      Because metaphorical concepts are inanimate, and thus incapable of aforementioned head-reattachments. Also, this is invalid because those who would have you believe in a “Sky daddy” god would say that he wants you to believe in him through faith alone-thus, to prove himself would defeat the purpose. Likewise, I want my significant other to trust me. To have to prove to her that I really didn’t sleep with her friend kind of defeats the purpose.

10)   See above. And also, he does do it himself. It is the good inside of us that prompts us to spread Good to others. Of course, here I intend “the word of god” to mean “good words” or, more appropriately, “good meaning,” thus “education.”

11)    Had this actually been done, then no, it would not have been a good thing to do. It wasn’t, though.

12)   They don’t. He does. And yea, I know right?

13)   I really don’t think god advocated that particular activity.

14)   Fossils show carnivorous animals before man because there were carnivorous animals before man.

15)   God “thinks” the same way god “helps.” God is not so concrete an individual as many would have him. God thinks about my problems and helps me find solutions in the same way that stars “tell” me which way is north, or color “tells” me if a berry is edible. In fact, in this way, god tells me which way is north and which berry is edible, because by definition god is all that is good, and since this knowledge is good, this knowledge is god.

16)   This is absolutely true. But one must always choose what to believe, even if one pretends he/she doesn’t believe. Are the rules of logic infallible? How do you know? Because logically, they must be? That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. I choose to assume that logic is infallible, and also that god exists.

17)   Because killing them just for eating some tasty fruit would be evil. And yeah, that does seem like kind of a dick move. Sure glad it didn’t actually happen, and those stories are really just more allegory.

18)   Probably some form of antigravity. But seriously, the same way ideas stay in our bodies. In fact, precisely the same way, since a soul is just an idea.

19)   Yes. God is a concept for creation (one of many “goods” (here used to refer to things that are good, not valuable products)) and thus he “created” the universe. How else did it get here?

20)   He wasn’t.

21)   Again, allegory and irrelevant to my belief in god.

22)   The watchmaker analogy is a fallacy. The sun naturally kept time without artificial intervention for millennia. Nature naturally became what it is. No invisible hand came down to make us the way we are. God simply created the rules, so to speak, for how things work.

23)   He didn’t.

24)   Allegory. Not fact.

25)   For shits and giggles. No, seriously, I have no idea why the people that made this story up couldn’t have come up with a more clever way to set up a sacrifice. This story wouldn’t sell at HBO.

26)   It’s the shortened expression of a wish. “I would like god to bless America in this difficult time” is the longer, more accurate phrase. This question is like asking why people say Jesus when what they really mean is Jesus H. Christ, or some-such. And we are after bin laden because that son-of-a-bitch bombed our fucking towers, that’s why. God just saved peoples lives.

27)   I’m confused. I’ll spare you my babbling though. I am not Christian.

28)   Noah’s flood did not cover the earth for a year. More likely, some guy in a village in Mesopotamia or what is now the gulf of Suez survived some flood a long time ago and people wrote about it when they invented writing. Exaggerated a bit, huh?

29)   That’s just stupid. If you add more water, you add more mass, and that mass increases the gravitational pull of the earth. That’s why Jupiter doesn’t just “wobble off into outer space.” That’s not how gravity and space work.

30)   I know little about the Muslim faith, but I think women feel the same goodness that I feel when I do well by others. I will never know for sure, but I assume the same of men.

31)   That’s about as true as the 2012 apocalypse prediction.

32)   God is not jealous, though the people who constitute gods substance (those with the capacity to do good, or everyone) can also be jealous. And god is love, love is not jealous, and that last statement is BS. Love is not jealous, meaning to be in the experience of feeling love is to not feel jealous. Basically just saying that if you are feeling jealous, that love is not what you are feeling.

33)   Ask them when you get the chance.

34)   Noah had a really good throwing arm, that’s why.

35)   God is omniscience, not omniscient. He is all knowledge, which is to say, all knowing is god, or any experience of knowing is a good experience, even if it isn’t much good, and all good is god.

36)   Probably not.

37)   He may not get weary on his OWN, but you have to remember, god probably saved his best creations for last (I.E., beer) and probably also wanted to try them out on Saturday night. Thus, on Sunday he slept in.

38)   We ought never to “punish” for the sake of punishing. We ought also to do god’s will, by attempting to help those who do evil find a way to do good. Always, we should be searching for a way to redeem ourselves, and help others do the same.

39)   God knows no gender. (but I think of him as a dude. Who else would make a fiery explosion of fire and explosions our primary source of all energy on this planet?

40)   Worship (or “doing good&rdquoEye-wink is how you get to heaven (good).

41)   Prayer is a kind of meditation, whose purpose is to center oneself and be better able to see what is right in the path ahead. Or to “communicate” with “god.” That is, to see more clearly what is good.

42)   A really cool hat, and probably drugs.

43)   Fallible men have the capacity to do good by teaching others. If we did not have the opportunity, there could be no good. Again, without evil, there is no good (and vice versa). It is the struggle that makes these things real.

44)   I know, right? But they are kind of funny.

45)   That’s absolutely correct. That’s why allegory written by grumpy, sandy old men living in caves is probably best not to take to seriously.

46)   Yea, probably not a healthy practice in principle.

47)   That’s why he also secretly built two really, really big aquariums in extra-dimensional space on the lowest deck.

48)   Again, concept, no physical manifestations allowed.

49)   Probably some kind of metaphor in one of those contradictory statements, but meh. Lots of contradictions to choose from, I mean, it is the bible.

50)   See above, on “good and evil.”

51)   It’s a metaphor for the very real conflict of good and evil in everyone.  Again, god does not “have.” God is all power and all foresight, or, more appropriately, All foresight and all power are god. There are always “battles raging” inside each of us, as we vie simultaneously for good feeling and an escape from feeling. (That ice cream bar looks so good. I wish I did not have to feel bad for stealing it, or else I wish I could simply “not feel” the bad that the act of taking it would inflict upon me.)

52)   Yea, probably.

53)   Because there are not enough mental institutions, nor room in the ones that exist, for every crazy person in my hometown, let alone the world. And also, these people are put away because they represent some kind of danger to themselves or others, not because they believe in fairies.

54)   Au Contraire; faith IS knowing. It is knowing without being able to prove. And it is what all of us must do. You cannot KNOW that anything you see before you is real. You must have faith that it is.

55)   The soul resides in the character. Wherever the character is, there is the soul. This is why potatoes ought to be let off of life support. After all, if you can’t have ideas, how can you have a concept?

56)   First, that would defeat the purpose of faith (as mentioned above) and second, he does. God is all things good, and we all innately have the capacity to know what is good, thus we know god.

57)   I have no idea. Probably didn’t exist anyways, apparently.

58)   It was a moral one. We all have the capacity to do good. It is not that god cannot sin, it is that god is not sin.

59)   Again, defeat the purpose, and he DOES. God appears before you every time you consider giving to victims of poverty in Darfur, or whether or not to send a Christmas card to your sick but distantly related and obscure family member, or whether or not to just take that soda and leave.

60)   Because that is barbaric and wrong; all of it.

61)   Heaven is the state of choosing good within a system of free will. Thus, by definition it only exists if there is also a world where there isn’t all good and freewill.

62)   Again, god does not have. God is. He is the path to salvation, because salvation is the experience of doing good, and god is all things good.

63)   He doesn’t.

64)   Those who do good experience heaven. Those who do not, do not. Writing is irrelevant, though it can certainly help.

65)   You will not burn in hell. You will either experience good, or you will not experience good.

66)   Some people believe that. I believe that to die lends significance to life, and is thus necessary for the existence of good, and, by extension, god. If no one died, life would not matter.

67)   See above.

68)   It’s probably all bull shit. Maybe he made an extra night, just for that weekend.

69)   Yes, I am sure. I know, because even when I sin, I still feel good for doing good when I do good.

70)   Yea, kind of.

71)   This is not heaven. This is a nightmare or a bad T.V. show.

72)   People hate homosexuality because people hate things they do not understand. I do not hate homosexuality, and those that do are very small, or else very deluded by very small or very deluded people.

73)   Because depriving a being of the experience of doing good is an evil act, though certainly evil can be overbalanced by good. A fetus’s capacity for experience is far less than a woman’s, but it is still evil to abort a baby when the mothers experience would be virtually unhindered. By the same logic, it would be wrong to cause a chicken unnecessary or end its life just because I felt like it, as that chicken has the (limited) capacity to experience. But certainly, for the sake of survival (far more critical to experience than whims of desire) there is nothing wrong with killing the chicken, or the fetus, as it were.

74)   Yea, because I can prove incontrovertibly that truth is impossible to know, and yet still I believe it. I have already proven to myself these things, and yet I believe, because I choose to. There can be no better reason that that.

75)   No, one must exist for the other to have meaning. Without hunger, satisfaction means nothing. Without thirst, satisfaction means nothing. Without vacuum, air means nothing. Etc.

76)   It is not the case, and yet I believe he was just talking about mustard seed biology. I was fascinated. They certainly didn’t teach me THAT in high school.

77)   Because meh darn dun gran’pa dern did toll’d me, dat’sh haw, ya durn dun dar ateeisht. En ‘e were ash infalldibled ash any o’ dem dun darn did jesus’ an all.

78)   Consciousness is not necessarily the result of a physical brain, by that line of thinking.

79)   Those that do are generally as ignorant as they are small minded, that’s why.

80)   He did. This is the success of the plan. Our experience is the end-goal, the whole point, the purpose of everything. To experience good.

81)   No, they don’t.

82)   Those other sects are wrong in their statements, then.

83)   No, but then again, with an infinite consciousness it is certainly not unreasonable for a sky daddy to be preoccupied with… well, everything.

84)   They didn’t mislead people. They spread good, and thus experienced heaven, as much or more than anyone else.

85)   Because it’s weird, and what’s weird is evil, clearly.

86)   It didn’t; see extra-dimensional fish tank, above.

87)   Without darkness, light is meaningless. The list goes on.

88)   It didn’t. It is a concept that has always battled with darkness in the hearts of we, the imperfect seeking perfection.

89)   Probably the same stuff dreams and Chuck Norris are made of: awesome.

 

Thank you for reading, if you have a problem with something, please respond below. Any more questions, I would be happy to answer them.

 

Many would call me “Atheist,” because my view of god is very much against the “sky daddy” view. But atheism is the absence of belief, which is a fallacy for most because most people just “believe” that the universe exploded out of nothing. That a vast quantity of energy and matter, all following the same uniform laws for the rest of eternity, suddenly created itself without prompting (and exploded). I believe this also, but it is none-the-less, a belief. Also I believe in logic.

 

 

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
 Quote:6)    Sin must

pheonix wrote:
6) Sin must enter the world. Without the cold, heat is meaningless. One cannot feel good if one cannot do evil.

87) Without darkness, light is meaningless. The list goes on.

That's not quite right. Heat and cold are subjective terms that we use to describe how we feel about a real physical phenomenon, the movement of particles; they do not strictly describe reality. The same goes for light and darkness; the terms describe how we subjectively perceive the world via photons. Photons exist regardless.

It's fallacious to make these analogs of good and evil. Though they are quite unrelated, it is simply very intuitive to split concepts into dichotomies that "seem" to "make sense." Good and evil are subjective, normative terms that we use to describe how much we prefer certain actions and the motives of people. So, in principle, as soon as you presuppose what is good or evil, you can certainly do good without doing evil. In practice, of course, everyone will do some things that many people consider to be "wrong," but this is because we do not always agree on what is right, and we instinctively do things that are considered wrong. In other words, it is not logically necessary for us to have "good" AND "evil."

pheonix wrote:
But atheism is the absence of belief,

It is the absence of a belief in God. It is not the absence of "belief."

pheonix wrote:
which is a fallacy for most because most people just “believe” that the universe exploded out of nothing.

I don't know anyone that actually believes that.

pheonix wrote:
That a vast quantity of energy and matter, all following the same uniform laws for the rest of eternity, suddenly created itself without prompting (and exploded). I believe this also, but it is none-the-less, a belief.

Really? Why do you believe that? And how did this "thing" "suddenly" "create" "itself?"

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!!

NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!! Anyone who thinks that atheists believe that something can 'create itself' is very ignorant. That idea comes from Theists, some of whom may believe it about God.

The Big Bang singularity maybe emerged as a result of some triggering event in a 'Metaverse', maybe the equivalent of a random quantum twitch which happened to exceed some critical threshold.

Time/Existence may be positively curved in some higher dimension and ultimately fold back on itself, so either teh Big Bang or the Metaverse

Whatever, none of these fundamental questions are resolved by assuming a God, who must be just as much a part of Ultimate reality as anything else that exists.

The net total energy/matter of our Universe is zero, being made up of equal but opposite kinds of energy.

'Beliefs' about the Big Bang are based on an enormous amount of observation and measurement, so they are in a different category from the purely imaginary ideas based on the fuzzy concept of a '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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:NOTHING

BobSpence1 wrote:

NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!!

Just as a rabbit can't pull himself up by the ears.

Gods can't create themselves from nothing.

It just cannot happen.

The universe would be overpopulated with gods.

They'd be like dogsh1t.

Everywhere!

 

Don't ask a question, and then be a butthurt god knobgobbler when you don't really want to hear the reality.

 

Class dismissed.

 

Ya, you heard me right...

B1tch!

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


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:pheonix

butterbattle wrote:

pheonix wrote:
6) Sin must enter the world. Without the cold, heat is meaningless. One cannot feel good if one cannot do evil.

87) Without darkness, light is meaningless. The list goes on.

That's not quite right. Heat and cold are subjective terms that we use to describe how we feel about a real physical phenomenon, the movement of particles; they do not strictly describe reality. The same goes for light and darkness; the terms describe how we subjectively perceive the world via photons. Photons exist regardless.

It's fallacious to make these analogs of good and evil. Though they are quite unrelated, it is simply very intuitive to split concepts into dichotomies that "seem" to "make sense." Good and evil are subjective, normative terms that we use to describe how much we prefer certain actions and the motives of people. So, in principle, as soon as you presuppose what is good or evil, you can certainly do good without doing evil. In practice, of course, everyone will do some things that many people consider to be "wrong," but this is because we do not always agree on what is right, and we instinctively do things that are considered wrong. In other words, it is not logically necessary for us to have "good" AND "evil."

 

I never claimed that cold did not exist without heat. I said that they are meaningless. Let me explain.

If I never felt too cold or too warm, I would never appreciate the value of warmth. This is a highly imperfect comparison, meant only to show you the direction and general feel of my argument, not outline it.

Good and evil are subjective only to a point. Some people prefer some things, but when I say "Good" I mean "Right" or "just," You can have a different opinion of what is correct, but Cultural relativism is principally wrong, in that it assumes that just because some people disagree with others, there is no correct answer. Things are not made right by tradition, but by virtue of their impact on the world and their intentions. Certainly an individual action's merit is subjective. But on a metaphysical scale, what is right and what is wrong do not change. Yes, circumstances define which principles win out, and concrete principles are supremely difficult to define. But they do exist. I believe it is our responsibility to attempt to define and follow them, and claiming they do not exist is an easy way out of this task. I also believe that we are all born with a kind of moral compass, a scale that is universal and true, and that differences of opinion are merely miscommunication and misinformation at play. That is why we must discuss things, that is why forums like this one exist. To spread and solidify knowledge.

 

And I sincerely apologize. Please, explain to me how reality began, because I was under the impression that there were no truly consistent theories out there. I promise you, if you can give me a better explanation than "god did it," then I will change my mind.

Here, "better" does not simply mean "more complicated," "possessed of bigger words," "or advocated by smarter (on average) people." A better explanation is one that is derived more directly from our common fundamental assumptions, such as "what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell are true" and "logic is infallible."

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"God did it" is a

"God did it" is a meaningless assertion, so any plausible hypothesis of where our Universe came from is better than that. God is a primitive, dumb, illogical concept.

As to where "Reality" itself originated, we don't, and probably cannot, know. Again, "God" is still part of Reality, if He exists, so He cannot be an explanation.

"Right" and "wrong" are not particularly meaningful purely in the context of one person. If someone was living in isolation on a desert island, there really would be only his personal desires and preferences.

It is really only within a social context of interacting people that they become useful terms. There are principles which pretty much everyone will agree with, such as that subjecting another person to actions that cause them pain/distress without their consent is 'wrong'.

Assisting someone with some difficult problem without requiring compensation, which increases their comfort/happiness and /or reduces their pain/distress, is 'good'.

Arguing about 'right' and 'wrong' in some more abstract or cosmic or metaphysical sense is quite unnecessary and pointless, and any 'moral' arguments in those terms are purely subjective and personal, including the feeling that there is some standard of right and wrong external to the context of our society. The basic principles I described above are far more objective.

"what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell" are not "true". They are perceptions, and may or may not correspond closely to what does exist. It is  a reasonable working assumption that they correspond in some useful degree to what is "out there".

Logic is not so much "infallible", rather it is the basic tool-kit for conducting coherent, consistent discourse. If we deny the foundations of logic, we cannot make any coherent assertions as to what is or is not true. It cannot establish what is true, but it can show whether some proposition is or is not consistent with another.

We do not need to know pain to feel pleasure, they are independent sensations. 'Cold' and 'heat' are sensations, and are subject to a certain degree of adaptation, so if we are exposed to a modest warmth for a while, anything significantly cooler will feel 'cold'. Nevertheless, we are unlikely to 'adapt' to the point that ice will feel warm, or that a wood fire will feel cold.

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


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:NOTHING

BobSpence1 wrote:

NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!! Anyone who thinks that atheists believe that something can 'create itself' is very ignorant. That idea comes from Theists, some of whom may believe it about God.

 

No, nothing actually creates itself. I was careless in my word choice and phrasing, as I sometimes am. But this still leaves us to the question "Where did it all come from?" I believe you try to answer below:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

The Big Bang singularity maybe emerged as a result of some triggering event in a 'Metaverse', maybe the equivalent of a random quantum twitch which happened to exceed some critical threshold.

 

I have trouble following your logic. I don't think it is safe to assume that your meaning of "Metaverse" is clear. Wikipedia has it as basically synonymous with the internet. By reverse engineering the more common "Universe" I came up with, roughly "Near or derivative, combined," As opposed to our universe, which would be "One combined," or all things combined into one. I doubt you meant either of these, and invite you to explain, but what I think you mean is some kind of alternate universe, which would make more sense given the etymology of meta. This, however, fails to address the spirit of the problem, as evidenced by this question: How did that universe start?

Allow me to simplify: When I talk about the Universe, I mean it in a more literal fashion. I mean, literally, everything that is. There can be no alternate, for if there IS any alternate (or more rather, if any alternate IS) then it is part of the universe, by definition. From here on, please agree to use the word "Dimension" for the purpose of completely alternate realms of existence (as you do in your original response). If anyone uses the word "dimension" to refer to its actual definition, please make this clear.

 

Anyways, my point is this: Big bang, metaverse, wherever you pick your starting point, please explain to me how there came to be existence.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Whatever, none of these fundamental questions are resolved by assuming a God, who must be just as much a part of Ultimate reality as anything else that exists.

 

Ah, but the fundamental assumption that some questions go beyond the natural (into the "Super" natural) does "solve" those questions, insofar as they can be solved. My only point is that, as I have encountered no explanation for the existence of existence that satisfactorily connects our being here with logical, verifiable reality, I have chosen to assume a force beyond reality in the same way one might choose to assume that the square root of two is a rational number in order to discover whether it is or not. The primary difference is that logically proving that the square root of two is not a rational number takes only a few carefully considered steps. Proving that God does not exist cannot logically be done. Until we prove that the square root of two is not a rational number, assuming that it is is the method any competent thinker would use to make aforementioned proof.

 

Recall the structure of a logical proof: First the assumption, then each step along the way to proving the assumption, then the conclusion.

 A proof of gods existence requires that we live and experience under the assumption that he does, as if each action we take for him were the next step in our proof. The conclusion of the proof, then, must be the moment we die (not medically dead, but irrevocably, completely dead). This final "act" is the point at which our proof comes together. If god does exist, I think then is when we will find out. If he does not, then we may not know. Some would say that we would have waisted time and energy in our lives on a fruitless attempt if he does not exist. I personally think the idea of dedicating my life to the discovery of the truth, one way or the other, is a rather happy prospect, but any who choose not to participate in this proof are welcome to do so, and assume whatever they wish.

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Pheonix wrote:I never

Pheonix wrote:
I never claimed that cold did not exist without heat. I said that they are meaningless. Let me explain.

If I never felt too cold or too warm, I would never appreciate the value of warmth. This is a highly imperfect comparison, meant only to show you the direction and general feel of my argument, not outline it.

Sure, the term "cold" would be meaningless without the term "hot" to the extent that they are mutually exclusive relative terms. When you call something "tall," there always has to be at least an implicit concept of "not tall." 

When you say that you would never appreciate the value of warmth, what you mean is that you would never understand the feeling of being hot of cold if you were never hot or cold, right?

Pheonix wrote:
Good and evil are subjective only to a point.

I disagree. I would argue that it's entirely subjective.

Pheonix wrote:
Some people prefer some things, but when I say "Good" I mean "Right" or "just," You can have a different opinion of what is correct, but Cultural relativism is principally wrong, in that it assumes that just because some people disagree with others, there is no correct answer.

I agree with this. Cultural relativism is incorrect.

Pheonix wrote:
Things are not made right by tradition, but by virtue of their impact on the world and their intentions.

I contend that nothing is made right objectively at all. Criteria such as "their impact on the world" and "their intentions" are preferences.

Pheonix wrote:
Certainly an individual action's merit is subjective. But on a metaphysical scale, what is right and what is wrong do not change.

I disagree. There is no "right" or "wrong" on a "metaphysical scale." We have preferences for actions and intentions, just like we have preferences for flavors of ice cream or genres of music. We form euphemistic and somewhat clumsy abstractions with those preferences and deem it "morality," in an attempt to attach truth value to them. It is a very popular and intuitive category error, imo.

I am not sure you are being consistent. If right and wrong do not change, then every action's merit should be objective, not subjective.

Pheonix wrote:
Yes, circumstances define which principles win out, and concrete principles are supremely difficult to define. But they do exist. I believe it is our responsibility to attempt to define and follow them, and claiming they do not exist is an easy way out of this task.

Very well. What evidence do you have that they exist?

Pheonix wrote:
I also believe that we are all born with a kind of moral compass, a scale that is universal and true, and that differences of opinion are merely miscommunication and misinformation at play. That is why we must discuss things, that is why forums like this one exist. To spread and solidify knowledge.

We are all members of the same social species, so our moral compasses are extremely similar, but not identical. I would say that most disagreements over what is moral stems from a difference in beliefs and/or miscommunication, but not all of them.

Pheonix wrote:
And I sincerely apologize. Please, explain to me how reality began, because I was under the impression that there were no truly consistent theories out there. I promise you, if you can give me a better explanation than "god did it," then I will change my mind.

"God did it" is intellectually bankrupt. If you don't know, then just say that you don't know.

Pheonix wrote:
Here, "better" does not simply mean "more complicated," "possessed of bigger words," "or advocated by smarter (on average) people." A better explanation is one that is derived more directly from our common fundamental assumptions, such as "what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell are true" and "logic is infallible."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. The best explanation would be the one that is most supported by evidence and makes the least unnecessary assumptions. 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Pheonix wrote:I have chosen

Pheonix wrote:
I have chosen to assume a force beyond reality in the same way one might choose to assume that the square root of two is a rational number in order to discover whether it is or not.

I do not know, that in math, one must assume that the square root of two is a rational number to discover whether it is or not. I don't see where you're going with this. Looks like you're using an example of being irrational as an analog of something else that is irrational? Even if that were the case, such a working assumption in mathematics is only a tool; one would not really believe that the square root of two is a rational number until proven otherwise.

Pheonix wrote:
Until we prove that the square root of two is not a rational number, assuming that it is is the method any competent thinker would use to make aforementioned proof.

Why? Is this just a math thing? If so, then I'm just not familiar with it.

Pheonix wrote:
Recall the structure of a logical proof: First the assumption, then each step along the way to proving the assumption, then the conclusion.

Huh?

Every deductive argument must assume some initial premises. There would be no attempt at justifying the initial premises within the same argument. They are merely assumed to be true in order to reach the conclusion.

Pheonix wrote:
I personally think the idea of dedicating my life to the discovery of the truth, one way or the other, is a rather happy prospect, but any who choose not to participate in this proof are welcome to do so, and assume whatever they wish.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that believing in something without evidence is the best way to discover truth.

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


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"God did

BobSpence1 wrote:

"God did it" is a meaningless assertion, so any plausible hypothesis of where our Universe came from is better than that. God is a primitive, dumb, illogical concept.

 

Correct. God did it is meaningless. As meaningless as any other assertion. No hypothesis of where our Universe came from can be either better or worse, because none of them have ANY ties to logic and fact. If you do not have a theory about how the universe started, fine. But if you do, I challenge you to present me one that is actually any more "probable" than any assertion about an invisible, intangible unicorn that has no effect on the world surrounding it whatsoever. Fundamentally unverifiable assertions all have absolutely the same value. The assertion that your thoughts are actually your own is a fundamentally unverifiable assertion. The assertion that your senses are even vaguely relevant to the world around to is a fundamentally unverifiable assumption. And the assumption that God exists is a fundamentally unverifiable assumption.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

"Right" and "wrong" are not particularly meaningful purely in the context of one person. If someone was living in isolation on a desert island, there really would be only his personal desires and preferences.

 

His personal desires and preferences would influence what is right, just as they would anyways. But there are essentially universal principles of right and wrong.

BobSpence1 wrote:

"what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell" are not "true". They are perceptions, and may or may not correspond closely to what does exist. It is  a reasonable working assumption that they correspond in some useful degree to what is "out there".

 

Right. They are perceptions. But you miss the point. It is not reasonable to assume that they correspond in some useful degree to what is "out there." There is no evidence whatsoever that they are not simply tools utilized by a sophisticated computer network designed to use you like a battery (except that that would not work, but you get the point, I hope). There is absolutely no evidence, not even a suggestion that leans one way or the other, that what you see, feel, hear, taste, or smell is even remotely related to what is actually happening in whatever existence your center of thinking happens to reside in. All evidence one way or another is entirely, absolutely subjective. You can know NOTHING. Thus, we must assume, and without reason. I assume that what my senses tell me corresponds to the truth, because that assumption allows me to act, and I happen to prefer action over inaction. Thus, our truth is reducible to preference. In the same way, I prefer to think there is a god.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Logic is not so much "infallible", rather it is the basic tool-kit for conducting coherent, consistent discourse. If we deny the foundations of logic, we cannot make any coherent assertions as to what is or is not true. It cannot establish what is true, but it can show whether some proposition is or is not consistent with another.

 

But logic is infallible. No conclusion that is logically valid can be false, by the definition of logic. If A is b, then A is b. No person using logic is infallible, by the nature of humanity. But logic, as an abstract concept, cannot fail. If a person uses logic and fails, we say he failed logic, not that logic simply failed. There is no instance, not a single case, of logic being wrong. Just people failing to use it correctly.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

We do not need to know pain to feel pleasure, they are independent sensations. 'Cold' and 'heat' are sensations, and are subject to a certain degree of adaptation, so if we are exposed to a modest warmth for a while, anything significantly cooler will feel 'cold'. Nevertheless, we are unlikely to 'adapt' to the point that ice will feel warm, or that a wood fire will feel cold.

Pain and pleasure are independent sensations, yes, but you miss the point of this discussion with an irritating consistency that borders on intent! Pain must exist for pleasure's experience to MATTER! Not to be felt! Not to exist! Not to etc, etc, AH!!! It is actually PAINFUL to talk about this so much. I kind of though people would just GET that one thing gives its opposition value.

 

Without light there is no dark. Is that true? NO. And yes. You must have been exposed to a lot of REALLY stupid people for this kind of thing to catch your attention. Normally I am talking to vaguely competent individuals, and so, as a consensus, when we see some obvious, really stupid assertion, we simply assume that that person intends us to take it a different way, and so we think about what else it could mean. There is no light without the dark, or, because you force me to drop all poetry and dumb things down, darkness would not hold mystery if we did not live in the light. Now I am worried you won't see the obvious metaphor in that statement... Grr... To make things painfully simple, we would not wonder what it was like to live in the downtown area of Paris, France in the year 2315 if we were currently living in the downtown area of Paris, France in the year 2315. And darkness would have no meaning if we did not have the ability to perceive light (or, to head you off, if there simply was no effect on the world around us that came as a result of the presence or absence of light.) There! I think that may have been clear enough...

 

Make no mistake, I am not accusing you of being unintelligent. I am merely frustrated by the situation of being so off key with each other (an occurrence that may be caused by many things, most likely among then simply a lake of familiarity with one another) which means that I must deconstruct a concept I had thought was fairly straightforward and clear. But, I should not complain. Alright, here goes.

 

Let us assume (for now) that a back massage is the only way to relieve pain and stress from the body, and that it relieves all pain and stress. If I am getting a back massage after a long day of tension, stress, and physical labor, the back massage feels better by EXACTLY the quantity that that tension, stress, and physical labor felt bad.

 

Thus, the bad gives value to the good. Without evil, there would be no good. Without pain, there is no pleasure. The physical experiences that provide us with pleasure would exist, but were there no capacity for pain, then the experience of pleasure would mean less.

When I know that I have just 1 year to live, my impending death lends value to my remaining life. When I am in a group that is fired upon and attacked by men with guns, and I see most of the group members die around me, their untimely death lends value to my persisting life. When My mothers family and friends are dieing around her, the lives of my friends and family are lent value (to me) by her loss. In a universe where gold was infinite, lasted forever (I hope you can follow me into the realm of the hypothetical) and was impossible to lose (and required no effort to attain whatsoever) would gold have value? No. Even safe breathing air is limited (just on this planet, so far as we know), requires effort to obtain (breathing), and can be lost (drowning). Thus it is lent value proportional to its importance multiplied by its scarcity. Life, the primary value from which all other value is derived, has value only because it can be lost or denied. Good, a difficult and sometimes dangerous resource to obtain, has value because evil exists.

 

I really hope this was clear. Please explain to me if it was not.

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"God did

Accidental double post. Please delete.


Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Pheonix

butterbattle wrote:

Pheonix wrote:
I have chosen to assume a force beyond reality in the same way one might choose to assume that the square root of two is a rational number in order to discover whether it is or not.

I do not know, that in math, one must assume that the square root of two is a rational number to discover whether it is or not.

Then let me clarify that for you. Yes. In order to discover whether or not something does or does not possess a quality, one must assume that it does and endeavour to discover whether it is true.

butterbattle wrote:

I don't see where you're going with this. Looks like you're using an example of being irrational as an analog of something else that is irrational? Even if that were the case, such a working assumption in mathematics is only a tool; one would not really believe that the square root of two is a rational number until proven otherwise.

This is not an example of being irrational. This is what any rational person would do. And that last bit is dangerous. It is not good to assume a foregone conclusion when constructing a proof, though this is what many do. Any true mathematician would agree that, lacking a valid proof of a numbers irrationality, it would be absolutely reasonable to assume that it was rational. Then, however, you must try to find out if it is or not.

butterbattle wrote:

Pheonix wrote:
Until we prove that the square root of two is not a rational number, assuming that it is is the method any competent thinker would use to make aforementioned proof.

Why? Is this just a math thing? If so, then I'm just not familiar with it.

Pheonix wrote:
Recall the structure of a logical proof: First the assumption, then each step along the way to proving the assumption, then the conclusion.

Huh?

Every deductive argument must assume some initial premises. There would be no attempt at justifying the initial premises within the same argument. They are merely assumed to be true in order to reach the conclusion.

Yea, but the spirit of the assumption ought to be that it really is true, until you can prove that it isn't. Otherwise, you are not really trying to discover the truth; you are trying to discover the truth that you want it to be, which inserts bias into the system. Obviously bias is unavoidable, but it is still better to avoid it where possible.

and again, you make an assumption about the thing, then test the assumption.

butterbattle wrote:

Pheonix wrote:
I personally think the idea of dedicating my life to the discovery of the truth, one way or the other, is a rather happy prospect, but any who choose not to participate in this proof are welcome to do so, and assume whatever they wish.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that believing in something without evidence is the best way to discover truth.

No, but lacking ANY way to discover the truth, why wouldn't you try this one?

 

Say we are stuck somehow, without any special gear, at the bottom of the ocean (hypothetical situation, don't think to carefully) and we somehow know that we cannot survive this, that we will not be rescued, that there is no way out, and that we have no way to prolong the inevitable, nor interact in any way. Is it irrational of me to pray for help? What if I swim for the surface as I do it, and take only the mental activity necessary to pray (I.E., no slowing down). Am I less rational than you because, faced with hopelessness, I create my own hope? Is it any less rational to hope for impossible salvation than it is to suppose that my senses convey even vaguely relevant information?

If so, how?

 

When no action we take is the right one, are there any wrong ones?

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pheonix wrote:BobSpence1

Pheonix wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"God did it" is a meaningless assertion, so any plausible hypothesis of where our Universe came from is better than that. God is a primitive, dumb, illogical concept.

Correct. God did it is meaningless. As meaningless as any other assertion. No hypothesis of where our Universe came from can be either better or worse, because none of them have ANY ties to logic and fact. If you do not have a theory about how the universe started, fine. But if you do, I challenge you to present me one that is actually any more "probable" than any assertion about an invisible, intangible unicorn that has no effect on the world surrounding it whatsoever. Fundamentally unverifiable assertions all have absolutely the same value. The assertion that your thoughts are actually your own is a fundamentally unverifiable assertion. The assertion that your senses are even vaguely relevant to the world around to is a fundamentally unverifiable assumption. And the assumption that God exists is a fundamentally unverifiable assumption.

Hypotheses, propositions, about the possible origin of the 'Big Bang' based on extrapolating from current theories about the Laws of Physics and other established scientific principles are infinitely more 'meaningful' than anything based on 'God'. They have already suggested some observations that may point to which ones may be more likely to be true.

'Unverifiable' does NOT preclude the possibility of establishing different degrees of confidence or likelihood to various ideas. So they are NOT all of equal value.

The assertion that our senses have significant correlation with external reality is far more reasonable than the negative. Senses that convey useful, even if not 100% precise and accurate, information about external reality would  provide significant evolutionary advantage over a species with less accurate senses.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

"Right" and "wrong" are not particularly meaningful purely in the context of one person. If someone was living in isolation on a desert island, there really would be only his personal desires and preferences.

His personal desires and preferences would influence what is right, just as they would anyways. But there are essentially universal principles of right and wrong.

What do you consider an example of such a principle?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell" are not "true". They are perceptions, and may or may not correspond closely to what does exist. It is  a reasonable working assumption that they correspond in some useful degree to what is "out there".

Right. They are perceptions. But you miss the point. It is not reasonable to assume that they correspond in some useful degree to what is "out there." There is no evidence whatsoever that they are not simply tools utilized by a sophisticated computer network designed to use you like a battery (except that that would not work, but you get the point, I hope). There is absolutely no evidence, not even a suggestion that leans one way or the other, that what you see, feel, hear, taste, or smell is even remotely related to what is actually happening in whatever existence your center of thinking happens to reside in. All evidence one way or another is entirely, absolutely subjective. You can know NOTHING. Thus, we must assume, and without reason. I assume that what my senses tell me corresponds to the truth, because that assumption allows me to act, and I happen to prefer action over inaction. Thus, our truth is reducible to preference. In the same way, I prefer to think there is a god.

As I said above, It is entirely reasonable.

The Matrix is a really dumb scenario. Doesn't mean that we might not be in some simulated scenario, but that idea of using us like a battery is a very silly idea.

Of course we have to have assumptions, but they are not 'without reason'.

Deciding to believe in a God when the non-God scenario is far more consistent with modern observations and the history of the world, even if not 'provable' either way, is simply wilful ignorance, or blindness.

You seem to be following the ancient philosophical fallacy that 'knowledge' with less than 100% certainty is equivalent to no knowledge. You haven't posted here before as "Jean Chauvin", have you?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logic is not so much "infallible", rather it is the basic tool-kit for conducting coherent, consistent discourse. If we deny the foundations of logic, we cannot make any coherent assertions as to what is or is not true. It cannot establish what is true, but it can show whether some proposition is or is not consistent with another.

But logic is infallible. No conclusion that is logically valid can be false, by the definition of logic. If A is b, then A is b. No person using logic is infallible, by the nature of humanity. But logic, as an abstract concept, cannot fail. If a person uses logic and fails, we say he failed logic, not that logic simply failed. There is no instance, not a single case, of logic being wrong. Just people failing to use it correctly.

You clearly missed my point.

Abstract concepts can certainly fail.

Valid logic conclusions are only as objectively true as the input propositions they are applied to. At most it says that IF A and B etc are true, then the logical conclusions based on applying logical arguments to those propositions will also be true.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We do not need to know pain to feel pleasure, they are independent sensations. 'Cold' and 'heat' are sensations, and are subject to a certain degree of adaptation, so if we are exposed to a modest warmth for a while, anything significantly cooler will feel 'cold'. Nevertheless, we are unlikely to 'adapt' to the point that ice will feel warm, or that a wood fire will feel cold.

Pain and pleasure are independent sensations, yes, but you miss the point of this discussion with an irritating consistency that borders on intent! Pain must exist for pleasure's experience to MATTER! Not to be felt! Not to exist! Not to etc, etc, AH!!! It is actually PAINFUL to talk about this so much. I kind of though people would just GET that one thing gives its opposition value.

Without light there is no dark. Is that true? NO. And yes. You must have been exposed to a lot of REALLY stupid people for this kind of thing to catch your attention. Normally I am talking to vaguely competent individuals, and so, as a consensus, when we see some obvious, really stupid assertion, we simply assume that that person intends us to take it a different way, and so we think about what else it could mean. There is no light without the dark, or, because you force me to drop all poetry and dumb things down, darkness would not hold mystery if we did not live in the light. Now I am worried you won't see the obvious metaphor in that statement... Grr... To make things painfully simple, we would not wonder what it was like to live in the downtown area of Paris, France in the year 2315 if we were currently living in the downtown area of Paris, France in the year 2315. And darkness would have no meaning if we did not have the ability to perceive light (or, to head you off, if there simply was no effect on the world around us that came as a result of the presence or absence of light.) There! I think that may have been clear enough...

Without light there is only dark. Light is a form of energy, an actual 'thing', which can be measured. Light/Dark are not two sides of a symmetrical situation. If we did not have the capability to sense light, or we lived in a situation of permanent darkness, neither light not dark would mean anything to us. That has some resonance with your position.

Quote:

Make no mistake, I am not accusing you of being unintelligent. I am merely frustrated by the situation of being so off key with each other (an occurrence that may be caused by many things, most likely among then simply a lake of familiarity with one another) which means that I must deconstruct a concept I had thought was fairly straightforward and clear. But, I should not complain. Alright, here goes.

Let us assume (for now) that a back massage is the only way to relieve pain and stress from the body, and that it relieves all pain and stress. If I am getting a back massage after a long day of tension, stress, and physical labor, the back massage feels better by EXACTLY the quantity that that tension, stress, and physical labor felt bad.

It would NOT necessarily be EXACTLY that amount, only if it brought you back to precisely the state you were before.

Quote:

Thus, the bad gives value to the good. Without evil, there would be no good. Without pain, there is no pleasure. The physical experiences that provide us with pleasure would exist, but were there no capacity for pain, then the experience of pleasure would mean less.

When I know that I have just 1 year to live, my impending death lends value to my remaining life. When I am in a group that is fired upon and attacked by men with guns, and I see most of the group members die around me, their untimely death lends value to my persisting life. When My mothers family and friends are dieing around her, the lives of my friends and family are lent value (to me) by her loss. In a universe where gold was infinite, lasted forever (I hope you can follow me into the realm of the hypothetical) and was impossible to lose (and required no effort to attain whatsoever) would gold have value? No. Even safe breathing air is limited (just on this planet, so far as we know), requires effort to obtain (breathing), and can be lost (drowning). Thus it is lent value proportional to its importance multiplied by its scarcity. Life, the primary value from which all other value is derived, has value only because it can be lost or denied. Good, a difficult and sometimes dangerous resource to obtain, has value because evil exists.

 

I really hope this was clear. Please explain to me if it was not.

True evil is obvious without 'good'. It only requires the non-evil, or neutral.

I will not deny that knowledge of experienced pain may enhance the enjoyment of a pleasure, but the pleasure is in no way highly dependent on it.

Your thought processes are reasonably clear to me, it is just that I see things differently.

Life only has value as it can give rise to positive experiences, ie more than the simply boring. The inherent urge to survive, to avoid danger, is clearly of evolutionary advantage, so it is no mystery why pretty much all life endeavours to avoid immediate death.

Our more conscious level of assessing the value of continued existence is more complex and variable.

Gold would have value if it actually served some use in facilitating our existence, which it doesn't, except to a degree in some technologies.

I have no intention of questioning that you are accurately describing the effect on you of those others' deaths, but that is not my reaction. Depending on the psychological state of the individual, the reaction can go either way.

I don't think you are unintelligent, just stuck in a sort of medieval philosophical/metaphysical mind-set.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Pheonix wrote:Then let me

Pheonix wrote:
Then let me clarify that for you. Yes. In order to discover whether or not something does or does not possess a quality, one must assume that it does and endeavour to discover whether it is true.

You do NOT assume that things are true before you investigate them. You form hypotheses. You are committing a very bad semantic fallacy. If your belief in God were equivalent to a scientist's hypothesis prior to an experiment, then your "belief" is not a "belief" at all. Yet, this does not accurately describe your position, as you clearly do possess a belief, and you are trying to very hard to make your belief sound justified somehow.

Pheonix wrote:
This is not an example of being irrational. This is what any rational person would do. And that last bit is dangerous. It is not good to assume a foregone conclusion when constructing a proof, though this is what many do.

No.

You are attempting to argue for the soundness of arguments from ignorance. The default position to hold on any positive claim is non-belief. This does not mean that I hold it to be absolutely false, but neither do I believe that the claim is true i.e non-belief but not denial of the claim i.e. I don't know what the answer is so I suspend judgment until there is more evidence. What you've described is not a reliable way of ascertaining what is true, at all; if you actually followed that rule, you would logically believe in all kinds of ridiculous and unjustified claims. 

Do you believe in supernatural fairies and unicorns? Based what you've said, you should; it is not proven that supernatural unicorns and fairies do not exist, so you should assume that they do. Similarly, you should believe in UFOs, abominable snowmen, and that Barack Obama is a Muslim. 

Pheonix wrote:
Any true mathematician would agree that, lacking a valid proof of a numbers irrationality, it would be absolutely reasonable to assume that it was rational. Then, however, you must try to find out if it is or not.

I don't believe your naked assertion. You will have to provide evidence.

Pheonix wrote:
Yea, but the spirit of the assumption ought to be that it really is true, until you can prove that it isn't. Otherwise, you are not really trying to discover the truth; you are trying to discover the truth that you want it to be, which inserts bias into the system.

and again, you make an assumption about the thing, then test the assumption.

Incorrect. You are trying to argue for the soundness of arguments from ignorance, again. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The premises are "assumed" in that they are asserted to be true in any argument, but they NOT true until proven false. You are making a mockery out of the burden of proof. "Spirit of the assumption" is meaningless. The default position is that they must be justified in order for the argument to be indisputably sound.

I think you are projecting. What I've described is the unbiased position, by definition i.e. I do not speak of the veracity of the claim until there is evidence. What you are describing, on the other hand, perfectly fits the description, "...not really trying to discover truth; you are trying to discover the truth that you want it to be, which inserts bias into the system." Let me illustrate this even more clearly; you assume God exists because you want him to exist >> "discover the truth that you want it to be." Ergo, you put all of your effort into rationalizing that your belief is reasonable >> "inserts bias into the system."

Pheonix wrote:
Obviously bias is unavoidable, but it is still better to avoid it where possible.

Then you should not believe in God. That is bias.

Pheonix wrote:
No, but lacking ANY way to discover the truth, why wouldn't you try this one?
 

I would say, "I don't know." You don't have to believe in random crap; you can just admit that you don't know something. Come on. Say it with me.

Pheonix wrote:
Say we are stuck somehow, without any special gear, at the bottom of the ocean (hypothetical situation, don't think to carefully) and we somehow know that we cannot survive this, that we will not be rescued, that there is no way out, and that we have no way to prolong the inevitable, nor interact in any way. Is it irrational of me to pray for help? What if I swim for the surface as I do it, and take only the mental activity necessary to pray (I.E., no slowing down). Am I less rational than you because, faced with hopelessness, I create my own hope?

If so, how?

It is not irrational for you to hope that you will be rescued, but that is merely desire. However, it is irrational for you to actually believe that you will be rescued. Praying is irrational regardless, as it assumes that releasing your wants into the abyss actually makes some difference. Irrational is irrational, that the irrationality is fueled by overwhelming emotions does not make it any less irrational; that's just a non sequitur. I cannot claim that I would be 100% rational if I was drowning at the bottom of the ocean, but that doesn't mean it's not irrational.

So, based on this analogy, you are saying that you believe in God based purely on an emotional need? Well, that doesn't sound very rational.

Pheonix wrote:
Is it any less rational to hope for impossible salvation than it is to suppose that my senses convey even vaguely relevant information?

Ah, this is a good question. I am not sure, as you can see in this thread.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28751 

Pheonix wrote:
When no action we take is the right one, are there any wrong ones?
 

Objectively, one cannot speak of right or wrong at all.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Pheonix

butterbattle wrote:

Pheonix wrote:
Then let me clarify that for you. Yes. In order to discover whether or not something does or does not possess a quality, one must assume that it does and endeavour to discover whether it is true.

You do NOT assume that things are true before you investigate them. You form hypotheses. You are committing a very bad semantic fallacy. If your belief in God were equivalent to a scientist's hypothesis prior to an experiment, then your "belief" is not a "belief" at all. Yet, this does not accurately describe your position, as you clearly do possess a belief, and you are trying to very hard to make your belief sound justified somehow.

Butter is 100% correct.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Pheonix wrote:
This is not an example of being irrational. This is what any rational person would do. And that last bit is dangerous. It is not good to assume a foregone conclusion when constructing a proof, though this is what many do.

No.

You are attempting to argue for the soundness of arguments from ignorance. The default position to hold on any positive claim is non-belief. This does not mean that I hold it to be absolutely false, but neither do I believe that the claim is true i.e non-belief but not denial of the claim i.e. I don't know what the answer is so I suspend judgment until there is more evidence. What you've described is not a reliable way of ascertaining what is true, at all; if you actually followed that rule, you would logically believe in all kinds of ridiculous and unjustified claims. 

 

Butter is 100% correct, again.

Any claim otherwise is a logical fallacy.

Only fools assume forgone conclusions.

Only fools can be so mislead.

 

Assumptions indicate you're not emotionally removed, and impartial. The more assumptions one makes, the more it indicates emotions, and desperation.

Hope.

Hope=Insecurity

Hope=Weakness

 

Ever heard the expression "When the heart rules the mind"?

Lack of self discipline.

 

Pheonix wrote:
Any true mathematician would agree that, lacking a valid proof of a numbers irrationality, it would be absolutely reasonable to assume that it was rational. Then, however, you must try to find out if it is or not.

You are doing such a fantastic job at being an archetypal religious logician.

Calling yourselves 'rational' and 'logical thinkers' are the biggest positive displays of sheer stupidity that underpin, and completely surround theism.

You fools are living, breathing, walking, talking, moronic oxymorons.

You should all wear helmets so you don't hurt yourselves, stay indoors at all times, and should not be allowed to have any electrical outlets in your bathrooms.

 

You should thank all atheists and athesim itself for your 'kind' not having become extinct.

 

Pheonix wrote:
Yea, but the spirit of the assumption ought to be that it really is true, until you can prove that it isn't. Otherwise, you are not really trying to discover the truth; you are trying to discover the truth that you want it to be, which inserts bias into the system.

and again, you make an assumption about the thing, then test the assumption.

And your 'beliefs' and 'faith' that you think are pure intelligence, purely rational, and purely logical, would lead you to cut the 'green wire', if you needed to diffuse a nuclear bomb to save all humanity?

Right?

Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.

You should worship us, as if we were gods.

You morons.

 

Pheonix wrote:
Obviously bias is unavoidable, but it is still better to avoid it where possible.

You're making what is called a fundamental attribution error (look it up), and 'projecting' that 'bias is unavoidable'.

Not only are you completely ignorant of what the scientific method is, it's simply not in your nature, to be without 'bias'.

It's inherent in your character.

You've got a handicap.

Predetermination of outcomes and self imposed positive bias.

Just like all theists.

 

You're all retarded, basically.

A self imposed 'condition' that you work hard to maintain.

You're masochists.

It's inane.

Your 'kind' is the reason child proof tops were invented.

Pheonix wrote:
No, but lacking ANY way to discover the truth, why wouldn't you try this one?
 

Have you never heard the axiom "The benefit of the doubt" ??

It's not in any holy scripture, apparently.

So who's looking out for your best interests again?

Go ahead, drink the koolaid.

I'm sure it'll be fine...

 

Pheonix wrote:
Say we are stuck somehow, without any special gear, at the bottom of the ocean (hypothetical situation, don't think to carefully) and we somehow know that we cannot survive this, that we will not be rescued, that there is no way out, and that we have no way to prolong the inevitable, nor interact in any way. Is it irrational of me to pray for help?

Yes.

It's foolish, and fatalistic.

It's inept.

Using up precious time trying to summon divine intervention, that could be exponentially better used using the radio to try and call the Coast Guard?

Fcuking tool.

Get outta my way, Captain Stoopid, it's time for a mutiny. You're underqualified to be a leader. You'd not only lead us into oblivion, you'd let go of the wheel after we were heading straight into oblivion.

 

That's the difference between me (atheist) and you (theist).

Your 'faith' and your 'belief'.

You're a completely gullible, misguided, inept loser, who fast tracks himself into stupid predicaments, and then begs for some 'mommy' to come 'save you'.

You're irrational.

 

 

I'm a skeptic.

I don't let my emotions get the better of me.

A clear thinker.

A rationalist.

 

I'm a warrior. I fight to the death.

Pheonix wrote:
Is it any less rational to hope for impossible salvation than it is to suppose that my senses convey even vaguely relevant information?

It's indicative of many flawed character traits, mainly despair, and insecurity, but also low intelligence.

You sound like you get overwhelmed very easily, and become inept.

There's no other way to describe it.

 

Just confirms even clearer to me, their (theist) way of thinking and rationalizing.

 

Go back to rubbing your 'lucky rabbit's foot', or your ancient scripture, which ever is closest to you.

That's the more logical way... 

 

 

Fcuk are you people stoopid...

 

 

 

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: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Since there are infinitely

Since there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational ones, the only rational assumption is that any given value is 'irrational' unless you have clear reason to think that is 'rational', such as the simplest case where it is a proportionality or scaling factor between two values which are already known to be rational.

That comment puts your ideas even further back than medieval, where 'irrational' numbers were looked with deep suspicion, insofar as tehy could get their heads around them at all.

If your handle was meant to be 'phoenix', you need to throw yourself on the fire again and get reborn again with some updated ideas...

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3248
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Pheonix wrote:.Good and evil

Pheonix wrote:

.Good and evil are subjective only to a point. Some people prefer some things, but when I say "Good" I mean "Right" or "just," You can have a different opinion of what is correct, but Cultural relativism is principally wrong, in that it assumes that just because some people disagree with others, there is no correct answer.

And what is the "correct" answer to this and how do you arrive at the conclusion that your notion is the "correct" one.

 

 

Pheonix wrote:

Things are not made right by tradition, but by virtue of their impact on the world and their intentions.

How do you arrive at that conclusion ?

 

Pheonix wrote:

Certainly an individual action's merit is subjective. But on a metaphysical scale, what is right and what is wrong do not change.

Except that what is considered good and bad has changed throughout history and throughout different cultures.

Pheonix wrote:

Yes, circumstances define which principles win out, and concrete principles are supremely difficult to define. But they do exist.

 Do you have proof of this ?

Pheonix wrote:

I believe it is our responsibility to attempt to define and follow them, and claiming they do not exist is an easy way out of this task. I also believe that we are all born with a kind of moral compass, a scale that is universal and true, and that differences of opinion are merely miscommunication and misinformation at play.

We are born without anything in our heads at all when it comes to morals. Morals are formulated through our acceptance/rejection of what we see, what we are taught, through the cultural memes of the people in our environments, and through our own perspectives as we hopefully learn and develop our ability to critically think and make decisions. We are not born with inherent morals.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
RedneF, I really wish you'd

RedneF, I really wish you'd not spend so much time making personal attacks.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational ones, the only rational assumption is that any given value is 'irrational' unless you have clear reason to think that is 'rational', such as the simplest case where it is a proportionality or scaling factor between two values which are already known to be rational.

That comment puts your ideas even further back than medieval, where 'irrational' numbers were looked with deep suspicion, insofar as tehy could get their heads around them at all.

Well said, Bob.

 

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
i have 4294964718 posts, n00bs

Quote:
Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.

Evidently, redneF, you have never been in Italy (but America too seems to manage it well, ain't it?)

---------

Quote:
Quote:
But atheism is the absence of belief,

It is the absence of a belief in God. It is not the absence of "belief."

From this quotes and the successive BobSpencer1's conversation about logic and universe, I think that atheism should in some way include something trascendent every thing that limits the mind: mainly atheism means to doubt of monotheistic religions, but in matter of facts it means simply to investigate reality and do not get distracted in the reasonments from things that corrupt logic. So I sustain that generalizing from absence of religious belief to absence of illogical belief in every field
should be allowed.
An example is when christians use famous atheist dictators to claim theories in their favor: outside religion, all around the world (again from Italy to America) politicians take advantage from said dictators because they were communists. This applies to finance, evolution or any other matter, for this I think that atheism should comprehend more than only religion: because humans can take anything as a religion.
I hope I have rendered the connections explicit.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Atheism does not include

Atheism does not include anything other than lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism merely answers a question: do you believe in a god? If you answer no you are an atheist. It is irrespective of any religious belief, superstition, spirituality, etc. Not all atheists are skeptical irreligious atheists.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Quote:Good thing

luca wrote:
Quote:
Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.
Evidently, redneF, you have never been in Italy (but America too seems to manage it well, ain't it?) ---------
Quote:
Quote:
But atheism is the absence of belief,
It is the absence of a belief in God. It is not the absence of "belief."
From this quotes and the successive BobSpencer1's conversation about logic and universe, I think that atheism should in some way include something trascendent every thing that limits the mind: mainly atheism means to doubt of monotheistic religions, but in matter of facts it means simply to investigate reality and do not get distracted in the reasonments from things that corrupt logic. So I sustain that generalizing from absence of religious belief to absence of illogical belief in every field should be allowed. An example is when christians use famous atheist dictators to claim theories in their favor: outside religion, all around the world (again from Italy to America) politicians take advantage from said dictators because they were communists. This applies to finance, evolution or any other matter, for this I think that atheism should comprehend more than only religion: because humans can take anything as a religion. I hope I have rendered the connections explicit.

The way it is better considered is that is one common consequence of a general skeptical and/or naturalistic and/or scientific outlook, rather than as a foundational position. It really is just a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
where is everyone?

BobSpence1 wrote:

luca wrote:
Quote:
Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.
Evidently, redneF, you have never been in Italy (but America too seems to manage it well, ain't it?) ---------
Quote:
Quote:
But atheism is the absence of belief,
It is the absence of a belief in God. It is not the absence of "belief."
From this quotes and the successive BobSpencer1's conversation about logic and universe, I think that atheism should in some way include something trascendent every thing that limits the mind: mainly atheism means to doubt of monotheistic religions, but in matter of facts it means simply to investigate reality and do not get distracted in the reasonments from things that corrupt logic. So I sustain that generalizing from absence of religious belief to absence of illogical belief in every field should be allowed. An example is when christians use famous atheist dictators to claim theories in their favor: outside religion, all around the world (again from Italy to America) politicians take advantage from said dictators because they were communists. This applies to finance, evolution or any other matter, for this I think that atheism should comprehend more than only religion: because humans can take anything as a religion. I hope I have rendered the connections explicit.

The way it is better considered is that is one common consequence of a general skeptical and/or naturalistic and/or scientific outlook, rather than as a foundational position. It really is just a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

yes, but definitions can change. the question in point was: could you really (has any sense that you...) be atheist and the go and believe weird things about any other things? it doesn't seems coherent. if you think that way for religions then you should apply this view no matter what.

-------

by the way i would really like a response from hungry wolf...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:BobSpence1

luca wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

luca wrote:
Quote:
Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.
Evidently, redneF, you have never been in Italy (but America too seems to manage it well, ain't it?) ---------
Quote:
Quote:
But atheism is the absence of belief,
It is the absence of a belief in God. It is not the absence of "belief."
From this quotes and the successive BobSpencer1's conversation about logic and universe, I think that atheism should in some way include something trascendent every thing that limits the mind: mainly atheism means to doubt of monotheistic religions, but in matter of facts it means simply to investigate reality and do not get distracted in the reasonments from things that corrupt logic. So I sustain that generalizing from absence of religious belief to absence of illogical belief in every field should be allowed. An example is when christians use famous atheist dictators to claim theories in their favor: outside religion, all around the world (again from Italy to America) politicians take advantage from said dictators because they were communists. This applies to finance, evolution or any other matter, for this I think that atheism should comprehend more than only religion: because humans can take anything as a religion. I hope I have rendered the connections explicit.

The way it is better considered is that is one common consequence of a general skeptical and/or naturalistic and/or scientific outlook, rather than as a foundational position. It really is just a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

yes, but definitions can change. the question in point was: could you really (has any sense that you...) be atheist and the go and believe weird things about any other things? it doesn't seems coherent. if you think that way for religions then you should apply this view no matter what. ------- by the way i would really like a response from hungry wolf...

Of course you can be an atheist, ie no belief in God, and still accept a whole lot of batshit crazy stuff. Human thinking is not necessarily coherent, or very consistent. 

You cannot logically conclude very much purely from a starting point of non-belief in God(s). It does not require logical thinking, or a logical, rational mind to simply not believe in God.

But it certainly is almost essential if you want to argue with Theists, or to justify atheism versus other positions.

Atheism alone is NOT a world-view, it is one aspect of many possible world-views, from the tyranny of dictators like Stalin and PolPot, the simplistic idiocy of Ayn Rand, the deep insight and understanding of some philosphers, like David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, and many scientists. Just go look up the various lists of famous 'atheists' on the Web. 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Atheism is defined as

Atheism is defined as non-belief in any god or gods. Of course, you "shouldn't" believe in essentially anything without evidence, but that doesn't it's "incoherent" to be an atheist and believe in weird things. That has nothing to do with the definition of the term. If you want to say it includes all unjustified claims, then you're just changing the definition.

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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Sapient

Hi Sapient,

For some reason my computer does not allow me to copy and paste your post for me to reference. But these questions are often absurd and very easy to address.

For example, the first one. Jesus did NOT fulfill all the prophesies of the Old Testament. So the question is based on absurdity. He fulfilled around 33 after His crucifixion.

Some Jews did accept Him as the Messiah. Again, the question is absurd. But you mean ALL Jews. The reason why they didn't accept Him is because they started adopting the traditions of the Talmud via Hillel and got away from the Torah and the TaNaK. They did not accept Him thus (John 1:10).

Also, the Israel was set aside for the nations (Gentiles) to be part of the Body of Christ.

You cannot rationally answer an inrattional questions. Most of these questions are irrational. I broke my rule and tried to help you, though I doubt that will work. You're too corupt and evil and immoral of a person.

Though I love ya.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Anonymousone (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:NOTHING

BobSpence1 wrote:

NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!! Anyone who thinks that atheists believe that something can 'create itself' is very ignorant. That idea comes from Theists, some of whom may believe it about God.

The Big Bang singularity maybe emerged as a result of some triggering event in a 'Metaverse', maybe the equivalent of a random quantum twitch which happened to exceed some critical threshold.

Time/Existence may be positively curved in some higher dimension and ultimately fold back on itself, so either teh Big Bang or the Metaverse

Whatever, none of these fundamental questions are resolved by assuming a God, who must be just as much a part of Ultimate reality as anything else that exists.

The net total energy/matter of our Universe is zero, being made up of equal but opposite kinds of energy.

'Beliefs' about the Big Bang are based on an enormous amount of observation and measurement, so they are in a different category from the purely imaginary ideas based on the fuzzy concept of a 'God'.

 

So many words used to say nothingSmiling


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Sapient,

For some reason my computer does not allow me to copy and paste your post for me to reference. But these questions are often absurd and very easy to address.

For example, the first one. Jesus did NOT fulfill all the prophesies of the Old Testament. So the question is based on absurdity. He fulfilled around 33 after His crucifixion.

Some Jews did accept Him as the Messiah. Again, the question is absurd. But you mean ALL Jews. The reason why they didn't accept Him is because they started adopting the traditions of the Talmud via Hillel and got away from the Torah and the TaNaK. They did not accept Him thus (John 1:10).

Also, the Israel was set aside for the nations (Gentiles) to be part of the Body of Christ.

You cannot rationally answer an inrattional questions. Most of these questions are irrational. I broke my rule and tried to help you, though I doubt that will work. You're too corupt and evil and immoral of a person.

Though I love ya.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually he fulfilled none of them until the Pauline converts who wrote the gospels backtracked through the OT to make sure he did.

They created the incident and then found the prophecy. Much of the time they still got it wrong.

"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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello Sapient

Hello Sapient,

Just figured out how to reference you above.

1) Not all was fulfilled on Calvary. Thus your question is false

2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

3) Proof from Africa is because Evolution is Racist. LOL. Since Evolution is a theory, is hasn't been proved via your standards.

4) Because God is the source of all righteousness, thus we shall have peace. And to say all love ones are burning is a universal negative and a logical fallacy.

5) God doesn't have emotions, this is anthropomorphism, figure of speech.

6) To show man His Justice along with His Mercy

7) No, because logically if you sin against an infinite God, your punishment also must be infinte

Cool Islam is a false religion. American soldiers ought to put Pig Skin condoms on Muslim when they die, so when they get to heaven, they are without a penus.

9) Some have seen this (Ezekial 37)

10) As an example of His grace

11) Everything God does is Good since Goodness via the Old English use to be the same word for God. God meant good, it was pronounced longer via good, that's all. It's no wonder she bears aren't at your front door now

12) Because God had His hand on the Bible (II Timothy 3:16). If Satan influenced it, God would tell us. Satan tried to influence it but failed via the gnostics. Simple history

13) Because Lot and his daughters were of the elect (qualification needed)

14) Because God allowed man to have dominion over the whole earth

15) All problems were solved in eternity. Since God is outside of time, all His thoughts ARE or IS. He is not bound by time

16) Christian faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Other "religions" do not accept faith in that manner.

17) Because He didn't want to. And yes, God would have known about the flood and everything else.

18) This is not revealed to us specifically. But because your mind cannot comprehend, does not mean it isn't so. Your mind is finite, so you cannot understand everything. (Deut 29:29)

19) There is no future or past with God because God is outside of time. Everything God does was decreed in eternity

20) Because man still has choice or the ability to choose. God hates sin.

21) The Tower of Babel was an occult building and they were trying to be above God. God did this as a demonstration of His power. He did not do this in Egypt because he chose a different path, mainly Joseph and Moses.

22) The Watchmaker analogy is a false analogy. It is a logical fallacy

23) as an example of His justice. Next time it will be fire.

24) Because the serpent deceived her

25) Christ died to overcome death, so that the elect can also over come the 2nd death, namely hell, and be with Jesus forever.

This was fun. I'll try the others when I can. The questions are absurd and often beg the question.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


FUCK YOU ATHEISTS (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
STUPID ATHEISTS PREACH SCIENCE FICTION

GOD?  jesus?  YOU DUMB ASS ATHEIST Assholes know nothing about history so you make you make claims that are supposed to date beyond any known dates that can actually be verified. You idots talk about science and fiction as if they are related because you are stupid morons. that is why you thrive on oxy morons.  A biogenesis, science fiction?  lol

 

You hypocrites talk about how you despise religions that preach a creator yet you all gather on this biased  pittifull website for losers to wak off about your own religion of origins which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with scamming people propaganda.

NONE of you can disprove the fact of a creator but you all sing praises about how creation is self explanatory by non living no purpose no designer etc....

 

You all worship creation but you deny being theistic pagans who use references to nature and science and evolution as if hey represent intelligent people.

Nature did it or mother nature or mother earth found a way , or sciences says so or evolution finds a way to design things etc.....

then you quietly say if , perhaps , we suppose intime, we believe, it is likely..etc./..........you fucking fools

You hate god?jesus?  LOL  you have no clue about  truth and deception but you all play stupid very wellllllll

 

FUCK YOU  and the shit you evolved from in your dreams

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Welcome to the forum.FUCK

Welcome to the forum.

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
You idots talk about science and fiction as if they are related because you are stupid morons.

Not sure what you mean. Science is the method of exploring reality via reason and empiricism. Fiction is what is not real, by definition.

Quote:
NONE of you can disprove the fact of a creator but you all sing praises about how creation is self explanatory by non living no purpose no designer etc....

Well, we don't need to "disprove" that the universe was created. The default position is non-belief. If you're making a positive claim, you're obligated to provide evidence for it. I don't assert that the universe is self-explanatory. 

Quote:
You all worship creation but you deny being theistic pagans who use references to nature and science and evolution as if hey represent intelligent people.

We don't believe in God, so we're not theists. References to phenomena in nature might be anthropomorphized simply because that is convenient. 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: God

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 God doesn't have emotions

So, he'd be indifferent.

He's neither here.....nor there, about anything.

 

Perfect!

 

The End

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FUCK YOU ATHEISTS

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:

GOD?  jesus?  YOU DUMB ASS ATHEIST Assholes know nothing about history so you make you make claims that are supposed to date beyond any known dates that can actually be verified. You idots talk about science and fiction as if they are related because you are stupid morons. that is why you thrive on oxy morons.  A biogenesis, science fiction?  lol

First of all, you're a coward, create a username and then we can debate your idiotic claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by science and fiction, of course they are not related... you are being either very vague on purpose or your IQ is not high enough to formulate any sort of coherent argument. 

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:

You hypocrites talk about how you despise religions that preach a creator yet you all gather on this biased  pittifull website for losers to wak off about your own religion of origins which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with scamming people propaganda.

NONE of you can disprove the fact of a creator but you all sing praises about how creation is self explanatory by non living no purpose no designer etc....

I don't despise religions that preach a creator, I despise all religions and irrationalities.  As for this forum, remember you came here not the other way around.

How can you even talk of us disputing a creator, you have to present any evidence of said creator for us to refute.  Do so and we will gladly take it apart.  You have nothing hence the whole point is moot.

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:

You all worship creation but you deny being theistic pagans who use references to nature and science and evolution as if hey represent intelligent people.

We make no claims at superiority, that is derived from your inferiority complex.  We simply claim that those theories fit the empirically gained data.  If I showed you a red apple, you would claim it was a red apple... if I told you that it was a blue meatball, you don't need to claim your position is superior...  You would be correct and I would be incorrect, intelligence has nothing to do with it. 

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:

Nature did it or mother nature or mother earth found a way , or sciences says so or evolution finds a way to design things etc.....

then you quietly say if , perhaps , we suppose intime, we believe, it is likely..etc./..........you fucking fools

You hate god?jesus?  LOL  you have no clue about  truth and deception but you all play stupid very wellllllll

 FUCK YOU  and the shit you evolved from in your dreams

We don't hate fictional characters, do you hate Harry Potter? Or the Cat in the Hat? 

As a side note, you may not want to fuck some of the stuff we evolved from, the large majority doesn't resemble anything you'd want to fornicate.  However, as long as you're not hurting anyone, knock yourself out.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:You

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:

You hypocrites talk about how you despise religions that preach a creator

You're not very astute are you?

The myth of a creator of the universe would be no different that the inventor of the wheel, to an atheist. A god would be a craftsman.

You obviously haven't evolved to understand the distinction between having contempt for the actions of a person, vs your indifference of the person themselves.

I have contempt for suffering, torment, anguish, fear, dishonesty, confusion, terror, violence, theft, rape, child abuse, cold blood murder, tyranny..............................................Period

Take that out of religions, and they wouldn't bother me.

Neither would the first craftsman...

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
yet you all gather on this biased  pittifull website for losers to wak off about your own religion of origins which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with scamming people propaganda.

The Theory of Evolution is a scam?

How so?

You mean Noah had dinosaurs, air conditioning, GPS and an Ipod?

So he must have had strippers and gays as well, because they didn't become extinct.

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
NONE of you can disprove the fact of a creator

Well, no.

But who cares who created the wheel, or if the earth was created or occurred naturally? Atheists don't.

What difference does any of that make?

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
but you all sing praises about how creation is self explanatory by non living no purpose no designer etc....

It's fascinating to imagine that, yes. It's something I still can't get over, to this day. Kind of like watching sunsets. It never gets old, to me. They're beautiful.

That kind of stuff makes your blood boil, huh?

Fuck, you need to start beating off more, dude. No wonder you're so bent.

 

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
You hate god? jesus? 

Well, no.

We don't see any activity that suggest they might exist. It's kinda hard to hate Bigfoot, if you've never encountered one, and it behaved in a contemptuous manner.

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
LOL  you have no clue about  truth and deception but you all play stupid very wellllllll

Stupid about what?

Not being like you?

That's retarded...

 

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS wrote:
FUCK YOU  and the shit you evolved from in your dreams

Don't forget to leave your email addy, to redeem your free condoms...

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
in magna pericula tasta testicula: what are subjects for?

in magna pericula tasta testicula: what are titles for?

Quote:
Atheism alone is NOT a world-view, it is one aspect of many possible world-views, from the tyranny of dictators like Stalin and PolPot, the simplistic idiocy of Ayn Rand, the deep insight and understanding of some philosphers, like David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, and many scientists. Just go look up the various lists of famous 'atheists' on the Web.

i agree atheism is not a world-view. what i was trying to obtain was "non-belief in gods" -> "non-belief". but i will be back.
in addition to hume, russell and the trio (quartet: harris, hitchens, dawkins, dennett) of the new atheists i share also some ideas with shelley, rorty, asimov and some other interesting people, but they always seem 'limited'.

Quote:
Of course, you "shouldn't" believe in essentially anything without evidence, but...

this will suffice. my bad.

Quote:
We don't hate fictional characters, do you hate Harry Potter? Or the Cat in the Hat?

try to understand from theist perspective: hate in religious context is not for example "wanting to hurt the biblical god" (that is what you think the theist is saying about you), but simply to not accept him when "you know him" and "he loves you".

i've read the answers to these questions in the 'triablogue' (2007), and that 'answerer', like chauvin (i mention you just because you are here, not to get your aggro) and other believers, answer with what he considers valid: theology and philosophy. you can infer that most of the questions go unanswered, and really im starting to think that these questions are not really understood. the blogger of the triablogue doesn't even understand why atheists (and i think anybody with a functioning brain) consider the biblical punishment 'a little excessive'.
and if you have ever read books that defends christianity (the first author that comes in my mind is 'vox day', but there are way too many) you'll know that those writers are going crusade-like on atheists asses revisioning history (i lack the courage to report their foundings, but feel persuaded to check).
history repeats.

there is something else:

Quote:
:Cool: Islam is a false religion.

start to put a turbant on your head and pray to the mecca, because not only the muslims (and jews) are way more religious than the occident, but their theology is well built (for example the quran talks about the big bang, big crunch, universe expansion, evolution and abiogenesis) and last but not least the quran is smaller than a bible.
just poking. but think on it. also, mohammed really existed (what we can say instead about the hobo zombie jew?), and sai baba is still alive, and he perform miracles. you have a lot to choose from, leave your old bible religion, and modernize yourself today!
no wait, also this:
Quote:
24) Because the serpent deceived her

i want to put here this famous argument: eve was better than adam because she, who was created from flesh instead from the dirty ground, wanted to Know. adam really was happy just playing with his balls.

Quote:
He's neither here.....nor there, about anything.

this is something i think needs elaboration. often reading theology books, talking with people or reading forums the intuition i get is that really this god is impalpable, so thin that you can't place it anywhere. in some way, if you remove what we don't know (the absolute beginning and end), everything is made by man and nature, there's no space for anything else.
also, religions are very anthropocentric: without man, what religion is useful for? what is everything for? man. what the gods care about and love (or hate)? man. (sometimes this is even about gender: man and not woman). ecc ecc ecc

----------

i may be a little off topic, but is there something that explains how the forum and the account functions (like the blue label 'atheist' under the avatar)?

---------

i've seen religions you atheists wouldn't believe


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 luca wrote:I agree atheism

 

luca wrote:

I agree atheism is not a world-view. what i was trying to obtain was "non-belief in gods" -> "non-belief". but i will be back.

in addition to hume, russell and the trio (quartet: harris, hitchens, dawkins, dennett) of the new atheists i share also some ideas with shelley, rorty, asimov and some other interesting people, but they always seem 'limited'.

Are you conceiving of 'non-belief' as a position in itself?

That would seem to be pretty much covered by 'scepticism', which is typically the position which leads to atheism as one consequence. That path to atheism would indeed normally preclude believing any other wierd things.

The other attitude encompassed by such an idea is simple apathy, lack of strong concern about philosophies and anything beyond the concerns of daily life.

Anything defined as a 'non-' with regard to any positive ideology is not really pointing to anything.

Non-belief in God(s) attracts much more debate because of the very common assumption/intuition that God(s), or some kind of 'higher power', are a fundamental reality.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
luca wrote:in magna pericula

luca wrote:
in magna pericula tasta testicula: what are titles for?

They don't do much.

luca wrote:
i may be a little off topic, but is there something that explains how the forum and the account functions (like the blue label 'atheist' under the avatar)?

Eh, well, that means you're an atheist.

 

 

 

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
again sorry to be off topic

you may be atheist, but sure you have some spirit in you...

i was asking about the whole thing: what all the options in the account means, how to make these labels appear and everything (i understand that some of them are for donating, but the simple "atheist" and "theist"?)

i have read the rules and searched for some explanations, but found none


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
luca wrote:what all the

luca wrote:
what all the options in the account means,

Do you have anything specific in mind?

luca wrote:
how to make these labels appear and everything

Only certain mods and admins can add and remove the labels under your avatar, including atheist and theist. If you just post long enough, eventually someone will add either atheist or theist under your avatar.

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