An Honest Question for Theists.

Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
An Honest Question for Theists.

Just bear with me, I'm trying something new here.

 

Answer the following questions.

 

Okay, lets say that for whatever reason, you begin to have doubts about your faith. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?

 

Why does it frighten you?

 

OR

 

Why does it NOT frighten you?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I have to say, I laughed

I have to say, I laughed rather heartily at the phrase "fully evolved."


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, there is no such

Yeah, there is no such thing as "fully evolved." That's the faulty assumption

Apotheon wrote:
No, that is not science. It is your opinion; an opinion from an imperfect brain. Everything you say you contradict yourself.

 Well first of all, actually it is science, and it doesn't need my opinion to support it.  Spend an hour with the FAQs on talkorigins.com if you don't believe me.

Secondly this argument is in the form of a fallacy called a dicto simpliciter.  In effect this argument is saying that, because an opinion *might* be wrong, it *must* be wrong (and, by extension, all opinions are necessarily wrong).  Give me a break.

For the complete logical positivist argument on why logic/reason works, go read Todangst's essay in the FAQs on this site.   It's not my field, but I can tell you that the argument is valid.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
This should probably go in

This should probably go in a different thread.

James Cizuz wrote:

Some people see it as quality of genes like me, some people see it as age of genes. Some people see it as amount of genes.

If it's the amount of genes, the common potato has us beaten by far. I tend to look at it from a programming perspective. With the potato plant you have a big program that does something fairly simple. With us you have a tight, well debugged (thank you evolution!) program that is capable of writing programs. I love it when metaphors come full circle like that.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
 

I have to say, I laughed rather heartily at the phrase "fully evolved."

Works for "fully evolved human," in that what your refferring to is not one of its ancestors. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Vestat, on an evolutionary

 Vestat, on an evolutionary scale, our brains are nothing but a transitional form brain. Transitioning to something better. Therefore, since our brains are currently imperfect, the belief in atheism must also be imperfect. This does not create a problem for the theist because 1. we don't accept evolution and 2. God, not our brains, is the source of our theism.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Vestat, on

Apotheon wrote:
Vestat, on an evolutionary scale, our brains are nothing but a transitional form brain. Transitioning to something better. Therefore, since our brains are currently imperfect, the belief in atheism must also be imperfect. This does not create a problem for the theist because 1. we don't accept evolution and 2. God, not our brains, is the source of our theism.

1. There is no such thing as a "transitional" organ. It's a misnomer. Just because something is always changing and improving does not indicate a faultiness to begin with. For example, if X evolves into Y, then it is not at all a necessary conclusion that X was faulty, nor is it a necessary conclusion that Y is faulty because it will later evolve into Z. Were X faulty, it would not have evolved into anything at all. It would have simply disappeared.

2.  There is no such thing as a perfect brain. Perfection does not exist in reality. Perfect isn't really even, as far as I am aware, a coherent term.

3. Not all theists reject evolution. Stop saying we do.

4. If evolution is wrong, then God must also be the source for atheism (along with all forms of theism), since everything must come from him.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: 1.

LosingStreak06 wrote:

1. There is no such thing as a "transitional" organ. It's a misnomer.

 

If evolution is true, then our current state of humanity is nothing but a transitional form in evolutionary development. Are you suggesting that the rest of your body is in transition except your brain? On what basis do you derive  that conclusion? Since, as you state, there is no such thing as a perfect brain, then logically our current brains are imperfect. My whole argument has been that if evolution is true, then atheism is the product of an imperfect brain, and everyone is agreed that our brains are imperfect. Second, you don't even have any right commenting, thinking and arguing against my argument because according to your own notion, the brain is imperfect. Since it is imperfect, on what basis do you even trust your thoughts?

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Just because something is always changing and improving does not indicate a faultiness to begin with. For example, if X evolves into Y, then it is not at all a necessary conclusion that X was faulty, nor is it a necessary conclusion that Y is faulty because it will later evolve into Z. Were X faulty, it would not have evolved into anything at all. It would have simply disappeared.

 

Fallacy of false analogy because 1. X is not identicle to Y. The evolutionary hypothesis is that our current brains are inferior to the brains we will one day have. But your analogy places X and Y on equal footing. That is why its is a false analogy. Second, everything you have said is nothing but the reasoning from an imperfect brain. I still wonder why evolutionists even trust their thoughts. Imperfect brains produce imperfect reasoning. This presents no problem for the theist because 1. we reject evolution and 2. God is the source our our reasoning and He has perfect mind.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
2.  There is no such thing as a perfect brain. Perfection does not exist in reality. Perfect isn't really even, as far as I am aware, a coherent term.

 

That's like an ameba saying there's no such thing as humans. Have you observed that there is no such thing as a perfect brain? Or is that merely your underlying presupposition? How can an imperfect brain possibly know anything about the nature of anything?

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
4. If evolution is wrong, then God must also be the source for atheism (along with all forms of theism), since everything must come from him.

 

Atheism, like darkness, is nothing but an absence of God and light. God does not produce atheism anymore then light produces darkness.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon

Apotheon wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

1. There is no such thing as a "transitional" organ. It's a misnomer.

 

If evolution is true, then our current state of humanity is nothing but a transitional form in evolutionary development.

Transition does not mean "not fully functional." A model-T Ford is not "imperfect" just because the 2007 Mustang kicks its ass in just about every way.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the rest of your body is in transition except your brain? On what basis do you derive that conclusion? Since, as you state, there is no such thing as a perfect brain, then logically our current brains are imperfect.

No. If perfection does not exist, then "imperfect" is a meaningless term.

Quote:
My whole argument has been that if evolution is true, then atheism is the product of an imperfect brain, and everyone is agreed that our brains are imperfect. Second, you don't even have any right commenting, thinking and arguing against my argument because according to your own notion, the brain is imperfect. Since it is imperfect, on what basis do you even trust your thoughts?

Again, "imperfect" is a meaningless term. Also, you've yet to demonstrate that an "imperfect" or "improveable" brain cannot reason properly.

Quote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Just because something is always changing and improving does not indicate a faultiness to begin with. For example, if X evolves into Y, then it is not at all a necessary conclusion that X was faulty, nor is it a necessary conclusion that Y is faulty because it will later evolve into Z. Were X faulty, it would not have evolved into anything at all. It would have simply disappeared.

 

Fallacy of false analogy because 1. X is not identicle to Y. The evolutionary hypothesis is that our current brains are inferior to the brains we will one day have. But your analogy places X and Y on equal footing.

No it doesn't. If Y replaces X, it is (very likely) only because Y is superior to X. They are not on equal footing any more than the aforementioned Model-T and 2007 Mustang.

Quote:
Second, everything you have said is nothing but the reasoning from an imperfect brain. I still wonder why evolutionists even trust their thoughts. Imperfect brains produce imperfect reasoning.

The italicized portion is an assertion that you've yet to argue for. What proof have you that "imperfect" brains produce "imperfect" reasoning?

Quote:
This presents no problem for the theist because 1. we reject evolution and 2. God is the source our our reasoning and He has perfect mind.

Again, stop lumping all theists together. We don't all reject evolution.

Quote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
2. There is no such thing as a perfect brain. Perfection does not exist in reality. Perfect isn't really even, as far as I am aware, a coherent term.

 

That's like an ameba saying there's no such thing as humans. Have you observed that there is no such thing as a perfect brain? Or is that merely your underlying presupposition? How can an imperfect brain possibly know anything about the nature of anything?

Again, you've yet to show that "perfect" and "imperfect" are even coherent terms. Something that isn't coherent cannot exist in objective reality.

 

Quote:

Atheism, like darkness, is nothing but an absence of God and light. God does not produce atheism anymore then light produces darkness.

If your god is a light, and he's supposed to be omnipresent, then atheism shouldn't exist at all. There should be no "darkness" if the light is everywhere.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  Vestat,

Apotheon wrote:
 Vestat, on an evolutionary scale, our brains are nothing but a transitional form brain. Transitioning to something better. Therefore, since our brains are currently imperfect, the belief in atheism must also be imperfect. This does not create a problem for the theist because 1. we don't accept evolution and 2. God, not our brains, is the source of our theism.

You are pre-supposing perfection as a goal, when evolution does not have any goal except the survival of that which it works upon. Therefore your premise is unsavably flawed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Imprefect brains produce

Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
It must be the result of my

It must be the result of my imperfect brain that I question why a perfect brain impowered by a perfect God would be introducing the soil of discrimination rather than reducing the fertility of it.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Imprefect

Apotheon wrote:
Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge.

An assertion you've yet to support with argument. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Imprefect

Apotheon wrote:
Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.

First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.

Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination. 

Either way, you lose your own argument.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Bertram Cabot
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I'll tell you what

I'll tell you what frightens me.

 When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.

Of course, practitioners of atheistic philosophies have tried things like this in the past, its just disconcerting to see it be a best seller without causing people to puke.

 


Barrie
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Do people who blv in God--all have the same definition of God?

People who believe in God--may not all agree what God is. 10 people may say they believe in God--but they all may have a different definition/explanation of what God is. Therefore, on the surface it seems they are in some sort of agreement--but depending on their beliefs about God--there may actually be spaces of disagreement between each of these 10 as there are between any one of them and an atheist.

So, I'd like to pose the question: IF you belive in God--how would you define that God? And if you DON'T believe in God--how would you define what it is you don't believe in.

Perhaps, some who do believe in God also wouldn't believe in the God as defined by some atheists.

Be well & happy,

Barrie


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Barrie wrote: People who

Barrie wrote:

People who believe in God--may not all agree what God is. 10 people may say they believe in God--but they all may have a different definition/explanation of what God is. Therefore, on the surface it seems they are in some sort of agreement--but depending on their beliefs about God--there may actually be spaces of disagreement between each of these 10 as there are between any one of them and an atheist.

Indeed, which becomes quite annoying when certain theists try to use this appearance of great numbers in order to justify pushing their ridiculous political agendas. 

Quote:
So, I'd like to pose the question: IF you belive in God--how would you define that God?

My God is a fruit smoothie. 

Quote:
And if you DON'T believe in God--how would you define what it is you don't believe in.

How on earth do you define what you don't believe in? I think it's safe to say that there is not just one God that atheists don't believe in. They happen to not believe in all of them, or so I've been led to believe.

Quote:
Perhaps, some who do believe in God also wouldn't believe in the God as defined by some atheists.

Well, if they define God as non-existent, then it would be rather hard to believe in, no? On the other hand, I have met a person who believes in a non-existent Goddess. I must say I admire him greatly.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Bertram Cabot wrote: I'll

Bertram Cabot wrote:

I'll tell you what frightens me.

When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.

 

Excellent point. I agree with Harris on some of his arguments, but definitely not this one.

Now, on to the question. Every person should doubt concerning God, theists and atheists included. To quote Hedges, "People without doubt are frightening." 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Job
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Apotheon

Susan wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.

First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.

Hi Susan!

I'm going to take a chance and step in on this conversation ...

Is there really a need to back up this assertion? Eye-wink

Quote:

Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination. 

Either way, you lose your own argument


I disagree.  The point made (for theists, I suppose) was that God was the source of knowledge.  Knowledge implies discernment, as there can be no justification provided without being able to discern the real from the unreal, the true from the false.
I didn't see any proof offered here to support Apotheon's assertions (as you so rightly pointed out), but I don't see the argument as self-refuting.
My 2 cents Smiling


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: First, you

Susan wrote:

First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.

 

If evolution is true, that would be my back up. If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.

Susan wrote:
Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination. 

 

Precisely, that is why atheism is irrational because they cannot discern whether or not atheism is an objective truth, or a figment of their imagination using the primitive brains they have.

Susan wrote:
Either way, you lose your own argument.

 

No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment. Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone. The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get. And theism is not a product of brain chemical secretions as atheism is. Theism is REVEALED truth. We are only receptors of this knowledge, much like a radio antenna. God has the perfect brain/ mind, and that is where we derive our knowledge of His existance.

 

I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health. Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Susan

Apotheon wrote:
Susan wrote:

First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.

If evolution is true, that would be my back up. If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.

Oh my goodness.

Because the human brain could get better in the future, that doesn't mean it isn't in pretty darned good shape now.

 

Apotheon wrote:
Susan wrote:
Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination.

Precisely, that is why atheism is irrational because they cannot discern whether or not atheism is an objective truth, or a figment of their imagination using the primitive brains they have.

Ah hem! Now you are asserting that atheists have "primitive" brains. Hey, if atheists have them, so do theists. Hence, my argument stands for discerning the difference between a god and a figment.

 

Apotheon wrote:
No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment. Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone.

Again, my argument stands. See my prior statements.

 

Apotheon wrote:
The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get. And theism is not a product of brain chemical secretions as atheism is. Theism is REVEALED truth. We are only receptors of this knowledge, much like a radio antenna. God has the perfect brain/ mind, and that is where we derive our knowledge of His existance.

So, because you don't believe in evolution and brains aren't going to get any better, you can tell the difference between an imaginary god whispering through that "chunk of meat" and an illusion?

Keep in mind (pun intended) that your belief does not physically cause an atheist to have a different type of brain than a theist.

"Transitional" doesn't mean what I'm guessing you think it means. My apologies if I misunderstand.

All living creatures are transitional because things can change a bit throughout generations.

Take, for instance, the Scottish Fold cat. (Yes, the cat lady in me is coming out!) The first Scottish Fold was found in 1961 (according to the article here) The folded ears are what we would scientifically call a genetic mutation because other cats don't have folded ears.

Through specific breeding guidelines (such as you cannot breed a folded eared cat to a folded eared cat, you must breed a folded eared cat to a straight eared cat with the recessive fold gene), there are now many Scottish Folds with lovely faces and gentle personalities.

That's kind of a "quick start" example of evolution.

 

Apotheon wrote:
I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health.

Ah, the argument of numbers. Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't make it true. How many years of history show that a majority held the position that slavery was just fine?

Apotheon wrote:
Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.

Oh come on now! Evolution produced theism in the brain? Since you don't believe the tiniest bit in evolution, I'm not even going to bother with that because now you're just being insulting when I've trying to have a civil conversation.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
If God did not exist I would

If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.

[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  If we

Apotheon wrote:

 If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.

By that notion, no birds should be capable of flight, since they all have imperfect wings.


Quote:
No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment.

You keep saying this, and we keep telling you that you've yet to argue the point. Being that you entire argument hinges on it, I would advise you to go about proving it before you even continue.

Quote:
Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone.

Again, you need to prove the first part before you can draw any logical conclusions from it. 

Quote:
The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get.

A shame, really. Some of us could use a bit of improvement, I think.

 

Quote:
I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health. Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.

First of all, atheism is not genetic. At all. Secondly, go take a psychology course. A basic one would be preferable, since you seem to have very little knowledge of the field.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:

spumoni wrote:
If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.

[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]

I guess so much for the "kill'em with kindness." Also, what is more moral? Being a good person, simply because it feels good to be good (like many atheists on these forums), or being good because you are afraid?


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Bertram Cabot wrote:

Bertram Cabot wrote:

I'll tell you what frightens me.

When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.

Of course, practitioners of atheistic philosophies have tried things like this in the past, its just disconcerting to see it be a best seller without causing people to puke.

You're quoting out of context, here's what he actually said:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyound the reach of very peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit at of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense." Sam Harris - The End of Faith, p.52-53 (Emphasis added)


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote: If God did

spumoni wrote:
If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.

[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules] 

Spumoni, you are periously close to getting a warning with this comment since this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum. 

This type of post will not be tolerated in this forum a second time.

Please refer to this forum's rules and please watch your language and attitude here. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
For someone who claims

For someone who claims rationalism you don't make much sense.  Special pleading anyone?


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Just bear

Maragon wrote:

Just bear with me, I'm trying something new here.

 

Answer the following questions.

 

Okay, lets say that for whatever reason, you begin to have doubts about your faith. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?

 

Why does it frighten you?

 

OR

 

Why does it NOT frighten you?

In my case, when I believe to doubt G_d's existence, I have some ridiculous experience thrown at me to up my "faith".

 

The thought of there being no G_d doesn't really frighten me. It may actually be a relief, since then I'd know that I must be insane, and would then be able to gain control of it. Of course, the last time I went through that train of thought, I was hit with a string of events that seemed almost to make fun of me and my attempts to rationalize it away.

Now that I come to think of it, the nonexistence of G_d wouldn't take away my primary problem of a large intertwined collection of experiences all pointing to some large, and presumably bad, future event of unknown scale which I either cause, am involved with, or effected by. Frustratingly vague and definite at the same time.

Without some sort of conscious entity behind it, it would be pretty safe for me to assume that I'm crazy, implying that said vague event will not occur, which would be good. I'd then be able to take advantage of my malfunctioning brain to study the defect, since it hasn't had negative effects on my logic.

 To get more of a background on why I think this, take a look at my "Why I Believe" thread in "Atheist vs. Theist". Large claims require large amounts of evidence. My reason for posting it here is that there's a large amount of people here that are smart and actually take the time to think through posts. I'm hoping someone will be able to give me some insight into the whole situation.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: spumoni

Piper2000ca wrote:

spumoni wrote:
If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.

[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]

I guess so much for the "kill'em with kindness." Also, what is more moral? Being a good person, simply because it feels good to be good (like many atheists on these forums), or being good because you are afraid?

That's among my biggest pet peeves with the more illogical theists. Why do we need fear to keep us in line? Working for the betterment of society certainly doesn't require belief in some higher power that'll punish you for all eternity if you don't. (As a preemptive rebuttal, I'm aware that that isn't quite what Christianity teaches)

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Imprefect

Apotheon wrote:
Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.

The flaw with this logic is that you assume that you do not share the same brain (in terms of evolutionary equipedness [spellcheck]) as the rest of us... which isn't the case. No matter how you cut it, you too are left with an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between your ears.

You assume that a being has bestowed upon you a great knowledge. However, since you share the same evolutionary traits as atheists, you too have an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between your ears, so maybe this knowledge isn't so perfect after all, eh?


DBoone
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree with a previous

I agree with a previous posting that the emotional aspect of FEELING doubt is a very pointless pursuit, for a number of reasons: my feelings may have nothing to do with reality, my feelings of doubt may have nothing to do with whether God exists or not, my feelings of doubt may have nothing to do with God's faithfulness toward me (given that God's existence is not an issue).

 So as far as the question is concerned the only way I can rationally answer the question is to restate it in proper terms, perhaps "Let's say you have reason to doubt the existence of God and therefore your faith is seen irrefutably as an irrational position. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?

Why does it frighten you?

OR

Why does it NOT frighten you?

 

My answer to the old question would be that no, I would not be frightened by the idea that there is no God, for the reason that I don't care how I feel when I am considering rational issues and ideas.

My answer to the NEW question would be that no, I would not be frightened by the idea that there is no God, for the reason that I don't care how I feel when I am considering rational issues and ideas.

If it could be proved that God does not exist, and not simply refuting the evidence od God's existence, then I would drop my faith in God and Christ like a hot potato.

But you might insist, how would I FEEL about that? I might feel all sorts of things: for the most part I'd miss going to church because I like the comaraderie, I'd feel angry for believing a lie, I'd feel relieved for knowing the truth, and since at that point all we would have is knowledge I would feel compelled to pursue knowledge for the sake of survival.

I would become a die-hard atheist. But until such a time as irrefutable evidence becomes known, then the most I could hope to ascribe to in this scenario would be agnosticism, which I have concluded is the more reasonable of the two positions, given that there is no human way to come to the knowledge of all things unless one thinks as time as eternal which doesn't help because you never reach the end of time therefore you never reach the end of knowledge.

And the economy of agnosticism must account for the possibility of evidence to swing in one direction or the other. I am personally convinced of the evidence for the existence of God, and some are not. Fair enough.

Thank you for raising this question, because it has shown me the importance of understanding the position of many who have abandoned faith in God based on feelings and/or the perceptions.

This may be more than you asked for, but it is what it is.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, DBoone, for

Thank you, DBoone, for getting the thread back on track.  Smiling

Is there anyone else that would like to take a stab at the questions in the OP?

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Thank you,

Susan wrote:

Thank you, DBoone, for getting the thread back on track. Smiling

Is there anyone else that would like to take a stab at the questions in the OP?

 

 

STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB

 

 

(Well ... it is KILL them with kindness ...) 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
There is one set of fears

There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.

Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.

The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.

 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
evil religion wrote:There

evil religion wrote:

There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.

Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.

The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.

I think you make a very good point in your post, but I would argue that it's not just a "one way street.

The fact is that many posters on BOTH "sides of the aisle" enjoy posting bold statements about Heaven - or Hell - is Jesus real or is He a Myth - etc when, in fact, they really don't know.  They have an opinion and that's all they have.

In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.

 Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died  and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject. 

Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".

 From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: evil

Broncosfan wrote:
evil religion wrote:

There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.

Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.

The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.

I think you make a very good point in your post, but I would argue that it's not just a "one way street.

The fact is that many posters on BOTH "sides of the aisle" enjoy posting bold statements about Heaven - or Hell - is Jesus real or is He a Myth - etc when, in fact, they really don't know.  They have an opinion and that's all they have.

Opinion is all any of has have about most things. The trick in determining between "good" opinnions (beleifs) and "bad" ones is whether one can justify ones opinions. I can justify all my opinions on God. I have yet to see a theist do the same.

Quote:
In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.

It could do. But in most cases the opinion would simply have some justfication behind it. The term "fact" should only really apply when it is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the weight of justfication is great enough for any reasonable person to say "yes this is a fact".

Quote:
 Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died  and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject. 

No this is an opinion. It is not a fact. I know plenty about the likelyhood of heaven and hell .All we know of phsyics and science tells us that such places simply do not exist hence my opinion on the matter is justfied. The theist position is not justfied in any way.

Quote:
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".

 From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.

I hope that we all go to heaven and we all live in eternal bliss. I hope that we carry on after we die. I hope that I will again get to see my friends and loved ones who have died. I really do hope this.

But "hope" does not make it any more true. All the facts about the world would indicate that such hopes are completely unfounded. Hence I don't worry myself about wishing for the impossible its a waste of time.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
 Opinion is all any of

Opinion is all any of has have about most things. The trick in determining between "good" opinnions (beleifs) and "bad" ones is whether one can justify ones opinions. I can justify all my opinions on God. I have yet to see a theist do the same.

Quote:

If you've yet to see a theist do the same, then you've not "seen" the right theists. 

In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.

It could do. But in most cases the opinion would simply have some justfication behind it. The term "fact" should only really apply when it is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the weight of justfication is great enough for any reasonable person to say "yes this is a fact".

Quote:
 Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died  and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject. 

No this is an opinion. It is not a fact. I know plenty about the likelyhood of heaven and hell .All we know of phsyics and science tells us that such places simply do not exist hence my opinion on the matter is justfied. The theist position is not justfied in any way.

Quote:

Science and physics deal with the "natural" world - "Heaven and Hell" don't reside in the "natural" world . These "regions" are beyond their jurisdiction. 

A phyicist could no more scientifically "prove or disprove" the existence of Heaven than a dentist could measure the weight of pride - or the density of anger - or the length of hate.

They're out of their field. 

Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".

 From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.

I hope that we all go to heaven and we all live in eternal bliss. I hope that we carry on after we die. I hope that I will again get to see my friends and loved ones who have died. I really do hope this.

But "hope" does not make it any more true. All the facts about the world would indicate that such hopes are completely unfounded. Hence I don't worry myself about wishing for the impossible its a waste of time.

I agree with you - hoping for something doesn't make it true, but sometimes...Hell, I hoped for many, many years to see the Red Sox win the World Series in my lifetime.

 Sometimes hope is rewarded..!!


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Science and physics

Quote:

Science and physics deal with the "natural" world - "Heaven and Hell" don't reside in the "natural" world . These "regions" are beyond their jurisdiction.

Since we have yet to have an example of anything existing beyond teh natural world in then I take this a exeptionally strong evidence that these things do not exist. There is not one single example of anything supernatural ever existing. Not one in the whole of human experiance. But perhaps more telling still is that fact that there are countless examples of suposedly supernatural phenomona turning out to have natural explanations. All this to me provides very strong inductive justfification for teh statement "supernatural things do not exist". 

Quote:
A phyicist could no more scientifically "prove or disprove" the existence of Heaven

The concept of heaven or hell would violate so many laws of physics. We have yet to find an example of anything that can break the laws of physics - conclusion hevean and hell cant exsit in the real world any more than a massive particle traveling faster than 300,000 km / second can exist. 

Quote:
than a dentist could measure the weight of pride - or the density of anger - or the length of hate.

They're out of their field.

Measuring the weight of pride and the such like is nothing to do with being out of the field. Weight is not something that can be applied to pride. This is a bad analogy. 

Any way we seem to have stumbled off topic.

My post was basically saying that many religious people have a fear of rejecting God because they fear the humiliation and ridicule of their peers. This can be a very strong fear that keeps theists in the fold. If I'm perfectly honest the same would also apply to myslef. If I sudenly found proof of God I would find it very hard to tell my atheist friends. I've invested much time is debating with theists and proving them wrong. It would be hard for me to back track. If I sudenly went all god squad I would be in for one hell of a lot of stick.  It is my contention that the same fear would be present with a theist trying to come out of the atheist closet. I would also suggest that this fear will be far worse for the theist as, lets face it,  religion is not exactly tollerent of non belivers. At least us atheists are free thinking and arn't instructed by scripture to murder people who think differently to us!

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
So, exactly which scientist

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

 And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

 Looking forward to your comments.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  I have

AL500 wrote:

 I have never once in my entire life ever doubted God's existence.

How the hell is that possible? Every good relationship with God has to undergo some doubt in a person's lifetime (St. Augustine for example). Although I think there is probably a higher being, there are plenty of good reasons to doubt or reconsider the existence of a deity.

AL500, how can you truly love God if you've never doubted in your entire life? Remember, love does not equal rigid obeidence and rejection of any doubt.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

Looking forward to your comments.

They would both violate the speed of light for starters.

Souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to get to heaven or hell. Its quite obvous that there is no heaven/hell within light years of this planet so souls either take many millions of years to get there (which woudl refute what it says in teh Bible) or they travel faster than light. What we do know is where heaven is not and thats anywhere near earth. The distance in between is goverened by laws of phsyics. Unless of course you allow that souls can violate the these laws and travel faster than light in which case errr you loose anway.

Either way according to the laws of phsyics the place heaven is impossible.

 

 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

Looking forward to your comments.

They would both violate the speed of light for starters.

Souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to get to heaven or hell. Its quite obvous that there is no heaven/hell within light years of this planet so souls either take many millions of years to get there (which woudl refute what it says in teh Bible) or they travel faster than light. What we do know is where heaven is not and thats anywhere near earth. The distance in between is goverened by laws of phsyics. Unless of course you allow that souls can violate the these laws and travel faster than light in which case errr you loose anway.

Either way according to the laws of phsyics the place heaven is impossible.

 Firstly, you didn't tell me which scientist / physicist disproved the existence of Heaven / Hell..??

Secondly, how do you know that souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to Heaven / Hell..??

Or that Heaven is nowhere near Earth..??

 Seriously, where are you getting this information from..??

Are you just making it up as you go along - or do you really believe that Heaven is a physical place  i.e. "Travel to Saturn - make a left turn - go straight for 2,000,000 light years and you'll come to Paradise - you can't miss it - it has these big Pearly Gates at the front and this"guy" with a long white beard and flowing white robe will greet you there".

Evil religion, you're exactly the reason why I enjoy logging into this site and posting occasionally.

Thanks for your comments - I really enjoyed. them..!!


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

Looking forward to your comments.

They would both violate the speed of light for starters.

Souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to get to heaven or hell. Its quite obvous that there is no heaven/hell within light years of this planet so souls either take many millions of years to get there (which woudl refute what it says in teh Bible) or they travel faster than light. What we do know is where heaven is not and thats anywhere near earth. The distance in between is goverened by laws of phsyics. Unless of course you allow that souls can violate the these laws and travel faster than light in which case errr you loose anway.

Either way according to the laws of phsyics the place heaven is impossible.

 

Why would it need to be based in the universe we observe? There could be any number of undetectable methods an all-powerful being could use.

 As for the traveling problem, without consciousness, you wouldn't notice any amount of time taken for travel. Not only could you travel millions of lightyears in what would feel like an instance, but you could arrive at the same time as everyone else who had ever died.

That brings up another thing... Once you die, relative to you, an arbitrarily large amount of time would pass instantaneously. Interesting things can happen when you multiply zero and infinity...

I find the stereotypical concepts of heaven and hell to be unlikely on several levels, though...

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: evil

Broncosfan wrote:
evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

Looking forward to your comments.

They would both violate the speed of light for starters.

Souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to get to heaven or hell. Its quite obvous that there is no heaven/hell within light years of this planet so souls either take many millions of years to get there (which woudl refute what it says in teh Bible) or they travel faster than light. What we do know is where heaven is not and thats anywhere near earth. The distance in between is goverened by laws of phsyics. Unless of course you allow that souls can violate the these laws and travel faster than light in which case errr you loose anway.

Either way according to the laws of phsyics the place heaven is impossible.

Firstly, you didn't tell me which scientist / physicist disproved the existence of Heaven / Hell..??

Science in general disproves it as a quite absurd idea. 

Quote:
Secondly, how do you know that souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to Heaven / Hell..??

Or that Heaven is nowhere near Earth..??

The universe has been examined quite carefully with a variety of  devices there is no evidence of any heaven within a few thousand light year. 

Quote:
Seriously, where are you getting this information from..??

Are you just making it up as you go along - or do you really believe that Heaven is a physical place i.e. "Travel to Saturn - make a left turn - go straight for 2,000,000 light years and you'll come to Paradise - you can't miss it - it has these big Pearly Gates at the front and this"guy" with a long white beard and flowing white robe will greet you there".

Well every other place ever encountered is a physcial place as you describe. There are no accounts of any "other" kinds of place. If you think that heaven is "non physical" as you suggest then it becomes an impossability - how can a nonphysical thing inetreact with with physical in any way? This would disrupt our notions of causation. It would also pose some quite serious problems for teh conservation of energy. All of which contracdict science. 

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are nonphsyical then if a soul affects a change in the phsyical world then this would violate the conservation of energy.

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are phsyical then when they disapear into heaven then this will violate the  conservation of energy.

If you heaven and your souls are both physical then where are they? And how come we can't find this heaven 200 light years left of  saturn? Does it have klingon cloaking technology?

The whole notion is daft. If completly flies in the face of all scientific thinking. 

Quote:
Evil religion, you're exactly the reason why I enjoy logging into this site and posting occasionally.

Thanks for your comments - I really enjoyed. them..!!

Oh goody goody goody I entertained a theist my life is complete.

I think perhaps you need to try this the other way round.

You need to explain to me how your heaven theory is consistent with science. 


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

Firstly, you didn't tell me which scientist / physicist disproved the existence of Heaven / Hell..??

Science in general disproves it as a quite absurd idea.

Replace science with logic. Science cannot deal with things for which there is no empirical evidence. Well, there is theoretical physics, but those are based on reality.  

Quote:
 

Quote:
Secondly, how do you know that souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to Heaven / Hell..??

Or that Heaven is nowhere near Earth..??

The universe has been examined quite carefully with a variety of devices there is no evidence of any heaven within a few thousand light year.

Quote:
Seriously, where are you getting this information from..??

Are you just making it up as you go along - or do you really believe that Heaven is a physical place i.e. "Travel to Saturn - make a left turn - go straight for 2,000,000 light years and you'll come to Paradise - you can't miss it - it has these big Pearly Gates at the front and this"guy" with a long white beard and flowing white robe will greet you there".

Well every other place ever encountered is a physcial place as you describe. There are no accounts of any "other" kinds of place. If you think that heaven is "non physical" as you suggest then it becomes an impossability - how can a nonphysical thing inetreact with with physical in any way? This would disrupt our notions of causation. It would also pose some quite serious problems for teh conservation of energy. All of which contracdict science.

Keep in mind that 99.99% of everything is nothing, and now with quantum mechanics, it gets increasingly hard to make concrete statements about that other .01%. Did you know that 67% of percentages are made up on the spot?

I was under the impression that quantum mechanics allowed for localized violations of the conservation of energy. Stuff like hawking's radiation. I'll be taking a course in Quantum Mechanics sometime within the next couple of years, so I'll certainly find out more about it. Wikipedia isn't a friendly place to teach oneself advanced physics topics Eye-wink

While I'm on the subject of quantum mechanics, would it not be possible for 'the soul' to be connected to the brain through collapsing selected wave functions as the ultimate decision making progress? I don't see how that would violate any physical laws, and it would be practically, or actually, undetectable.

Quote:
 

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are nonphsyical then if a soul affects a change in the phsyical world then this would violate the conservation of energy.

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are phsyical then when they disapear into heaven then this will violate the conservation of energy.

If you heaven and your souls are both physical then where are they? And how come we can't find this heaven 200 light years left of saturn? Does it have klingon cloaking technology?

Perhaps...

You're still taking conservation of energy into places where it doesn't really go, along as trying to stretch science to a place where it can't reach. If you want to use science here, go with neurology, not cosmology...

Quote:
 

The whole notion is daft. If completly flies in the face of all scientific thinking.

Quote:
Evil religion, you're exactly the reason why I enjoy logging into this site and posting occasionally.

Thanks for your comments - I really enjoyed. them..!!

Oh goody goody goody I entertained a theist my life is complete.

I think perhaps you need to try this the other way round.

You need to explain to me how your heaven theory is consistent with science.

It's irrelevant to try to prove consistency in subjects that don't overlap. Any valid arguments would come from logic, neurology, psychology, and things like that.

 

Personally, I disagree with the concepts Christian's generally present of heaven and hell. I'm not sure whether or not I believe in any form of afterlife. Belief in G_d does not necessarily mean belief in an afterlife. I find the concept of hell to be pretty silly. I think it would be enough to simply see the full extent of your actions and their effects on others, complete with a copy of their perspectives. Did I mention that I have a very optimistic view of the brighter side of human nature?

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Froggy618157725

Froggy618157725 wrote:
evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

Firstly, you didn't tell me which scientist / physicist disproved the existence of Heaven / Hell..??

Science in general disproves it as a quite absurd idea.

Replace science with logic. Science cannot deal with things for which there is no empirical evidence. Well, there is theoretical physics, but those are based on reality.  

Quote:
 

Quote:
Secondly, how do you know that souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to Heaven / Hell..??

Or that Heaven is nowhere near Earth..??

The universe has been examined quite carefully with a variety of devices there is no evidence of any heaven within a few thousand light year.

Quote:
Seriously, where are you getting this information from..??

Are you just making it up as you go along - or do you really believe that Heaven is a physical place i.e. "Travel to Saturn - make a left turn - go straight for 2,000,000 light years and you'll come to Paradise - you can't miss it - it has these big Pearly Gates at the front and this"guy" with a long white beard and flowing white robe will greet you there".

Well every other place ever encountered is a physcial place as you describe. There are no accounts of any "other" kinds of place. If you think that heaven is "non physical" as you suggest then it becomes an impossability - how can a nonphysical thing inetreact with with physical in any way? This would disrupt our notions of causation. It would also pose some quite serious problems for teh conservation of energy. All of which contracdict science.

Keep in mind that 99.99% of everything is nothing, and now with quantum mechanics, it gets increasingly hard to make concrete statements about that other .01%. Did you know that 67% of percentages are made up on the spot?

Actually we can make excellent predictions about the 0.1% its just that the universe turns out to be proabbalistic in nature rather than deterministic.

Quote:
I was under the impression that quantum mechanics allowed for localized violations of the conservation of energy. Stuff like hawking's radiation. I'll be taking a course in Quantum Mechanics sometime within the next couple of years, so I'll certainly find out more about it. Wikipedia isn't a friendly place to teach oneself advanced physics topics Eye-wink

Good for you. Its a fascinating subject and one which I have studied at university and I can tell you now conservation of energy is not violated by quantum physics. The localised phenomona of which you speak do not violate COE for all sorts of rather complex reasons which I'm sure you will learn about in due course.

Quote:
While I'm on the subject of quantum mechanics, would it not be possible for 'the soul' to be connected to the brain through collapsing selected wave functions as the ultimate decision making progress? I don't see how that would violate any physical laws, and it would be practically, or actually, undetectable.

In order for that to occur the sould would need to be phsyical and indeed macroscopic. Wave functions collapse only when they interact with macroscopic objects. If a soul was thus then we should be able to weigh it and probe it in the same way as any other macroscpic wavefunction collapsing object.

Quote:
Quote:
 

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are nonphsyical then if a soul affects a change in the phsyical world then this would violate the conservation of energy.

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are phsyical then when they disapear into heaven then this will violate the conservation of energy.

If you heaven and your souls are both physical then where are they? And how come we can't find this heaven 200 light years left of saturn? Does it have klingon cloaking technology?

Perhaps...

You're still taking conservation of energy into places where it doesn't really go, along as trying to stretch science to a place where it can't reach. If you want to use science here, go with neurology, not cosmology...

Fine. In order for any change to occur within the universe there must be some kind of energy exchange. If a soul can affect change in the phsyical brain or body then energy must be exchanged. As souls are nonphysical then this energy must be created when the said change occurs. It enters the universe at the point of interaction thus violating the COE.

Quote:
Quote:
 

The whole notion is daft. If completly flies in the face of all scientific thinking.

Quote:
Evil religion, you're exactly the reason why I enjoy logging into this site and posting occasionally.

Thanks for your comments - I really enjoyed. them..!!

Oh goody goody goody I entertained a theist my life is complete.

I think perhaps you need to try this the other way round.

You need to explain to me how your heaven theory is consistent with science.

It's irrelevant to try to prove consistency in subjects that don't overlap. Any valid arguments would come from logic, neurology, psychology, and things like that.

Personally, I disagree with the concepts Christian's generally present of heaven and hell. I'm not sure whether or not I believe in any form of afterlife. Belief in G_d does not necessarily mean belief in an afterlife.

Indeed

Quote:
I find the concept of hell to be pretty silly.

Good from a scientific point of view they just that! Silly

Quote:
 I think it would be enough to simply see the full extent of your actions and their effects on others, complete with a copy of their perspectives. Did I mention that I have a very optimistic view of the brighter side of human nature?

No you did not mention this.


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:

Froggy wrote:
Keep in mind that 99.99% of everything is nothing, and now with quantum mechanics, it gets increasingly hard to make concrete statements about that other .01%. Did you know that 67% of percentages are made up on the spot?

Actually we can make excellent predictions about the 0.1% its just that the universe turns out to be proabbalistic in nature rather than deterministic.

That's why I said concrete Eye-wink I look forward to learning more about Quantum Mechanics. I don't believe in true randomness, but I've read up a few ideas of how Quantum Mechanics could get around that.

Quote:

Good for you. Its a fascinating subject and one which I have studied at university and I can tell you now conservation of energy is not violated by quantum physics. The localised phenomona of which you speak do not violate COE for all sorts of rather complex reasons which I'm sure you will learn about in due course.

I can't wait Smiling 

That's what you get when your Quantum Mechanics knowlege is based on random articles on teh interwebs...

Quote:
In order for that to occur the sould would need to be phsyical and indeed macroscopic. Wave functions collapse only when they interact with macroscopic objects. If a soul was thus then we should be able to weigh it and probe it in the same way as any other macroscpic wavefunction collapsing object.

What's different about a macroscopic object? Is it any more than a sum of the particles in it?  Hopefully I'll learn that in the course, too.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
evil religion wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

So, exactly which scientist / physicist proved that Heaven and Hell don't exist - and when was it proved..!!

And EXACTLY which law of physics does the existence of Heaven / Hell violate..?? And if we have no idea of EXACTLY what / where Heaven / Hell is, then how could we possibly know what laws are violated..??

Looking forward to your comments.

They would both violate the speed of light for starters.

Souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to get to heaven or hell. Its quite obvous that there is no heaven/hell within light years of this planet so souls either take many millions of years to get there (which woudl refute what it says in teh Bible) or they travel faster than light. What we do know is where heaven is not and thats anywhere near earth. The distance in between is goverened by laws of phsyics. Unless of course you allow that souls can violate the these laws and travel faster than light in which case errr you loose anway.

Either way according to the laws of phsyics the place heaven is impossible.

Firstly, you didn't tell me which scientist / physicist disproved the existence of Heaven / Hell..??

Science in general disproves it as a quite absurd idea. 

Quote:
Secondly, how do you know that souls would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to Heaven / Hell..??

Or that Heaven is nowhere near Earth..??

The universe has been examined quite carefully with a variety of  devices there is no evidence of any heaven within a few thousand light year. 

Quote:
Seriously, where are you getting this information from..??

Are you just making it up as you go along - or do you really believe that Heaven is a physical place i.e. "Travel to Saturn - make a left turn - go straight for 2,000,000 light years and you'll come to Paradise - you can't miss it - it has these big Pearly Gates at the front and this"guy" with a long white beard and flowing white robe will greet you there".

Well every other place ever encountered is a physcial place as you describe. There are no accounts of any "other" kinds of place. If you think that heaven is "non physical" as you suggest then it becomes an impossability - how can a nonphysical thing inetreact with with physical in any way? This would disrupt our notions of causation. It would also pose some quite serious problems for teh conservation of energy. All of which contracdict science. 

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are nonphsyical then if a soul affects a change in the phsyical world then this would violate the conservation of energy.

If your heaven is non physical and your souls are phsyical then when they disapear into heaven then this will violate the  conservation of energy.

If you heaven and your souls are both physical then where are they? And how come we can't find this heaven 200 light years left of  saturn? Does it have klingon cloaking technology?

The whole notion is daft. If completly flies in the face of all scientific thinking. 

Quote:
Evil religion, you're exactly the reason why I enjoy logging into this site and posting occasionally.

Thanks for your comments - I really enjoyed. them..!!

Oh goody goody goody I entertained a theist my life is complete.

I think perhaps you need to try this the other way round.

You need to explain to me how your heaven theory is consistent with science. 

  

I'm sorry, EvilReligion, but the idea that Heaven doesn't exist because our telescopes and other scientific devices haven't "discovered" this "place" yet is just too funny. 

Yes - you did make this theist laugh..!!

 Thanks.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I'm

Broncosfan wrote:

I'm sorry, EvilReligion, but the idea that Heaven doesn't exist because our telescopes and other scientific devices haven't "discovered" this "place" yet is just too funny.

Yes - you did make this theist laugh..!!

Thanks.

You can't measure the supernatural.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Evilreligion, you seem to

Evilreligion, you seem to have the misconception that science and God cannot co exist. Read my essays on

Matter 

and the one on  

Infinte consciousness 

 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Froggy618157725

Froggy618157725 wrote:

evil religion wrote:

Froggy wrote:
Keep in mind that 99.99% of everything is nothing, and now with quantum mechanics, it gets increasingly hard to make concrete statements about that other .01%. Did you know that 67% of percentages are made up on the spot?

Actually we can make excellent predictions about the 0.1% its just that the universe turns out to be proabbalistic in nature rather than deterministic

That's why I said concrete Eye-wink I look forward to learning more about Quantum Mechanics.

But we can make concrete statements about the probabilties involved. It turns out that fundamentally this is just how reality is. It is not deterministic its probalistic. 

Quote:
I don't believe in true randomness, but I've read up a few ideas of how Quantum Mechanics could get around that.

Your probably thinking of the various hidden variable interpretations. I don't think any of them work and infcat have pretty much been experimentally proved to be wrong. Its complex but if you pursue the course and get your head around it then its more than likely that you will end up a tur belivere in randomness. Its a spooky and rather unnerving revelation that has done the heads in of the finest human minds.

Quote:
Quote:

Good for you. Its a fascinating subject and one which I have studied at university and I can tell you now conservation of energy is not violated by quantum physics. The localised phenomona of which you speak do not violate COE for all sorts of rather complex reasons which I'm sure you will learn about in due course.

I can't wait Smiling 

That's what you get when your Quantum Mechanics knowlege is based on random articles on teh interwebs...

Quote:
In order for that to occur the sould would need to be phsyical and indeed macroscopic. Wave functions collapse only when they interact with macroscopic objects. If a soul was thus then we should be able to weigh it and probe it in the same way as any other macroscpic wavefunction collapsing object.

What's different about a macroscopic object? Is it any more than a sum of the particles in it?  Hopefully I'll learn that in the course, too.

Wave functions combine. The limiting effect when one sums up the wave functions of millions of particles seems to be macroscopic properties like position and mommentum. At the quantum level these properties do not have descrete values an electron for example does not have a position until such time as its position is measured or fixed by interaction with a macrosopic object which does "have" a position because position is a limiting case property of the sum of its millions of particles wave functions. 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I'm

Broncosfan wrote:
I'm sorry, EvilReligion, but the idea that Heaven doesn't exist because our telescopes and other scientific devices haven't "discovered" this "place" yet is just too funny. 

Yes - you did make this theist laugh..!!

 Thanks.

WHy?

Why is it funny?

Oh let me gues because heaven isn't like that?

Its special and neatly avoids any necesity to have any proof. Your humour is very telling about the special pleading made on behalf of concepts like heaven. For any other place we would need proof of its existence prior to accepting it as existing but not heaven! No! Heaven's different its special!