Writing a thesis on why theism is more rational... need GOOD opposing viewpoints.
My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."
Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)
I. Logically Consistent
A. Law of Causality
1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,
and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.
2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal
being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.
(a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)
II. Empirically adequate
A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have
remained unchanged for centuries.
1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the
unscientific evolution THEORY.
2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.
B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a
fundamental law of physics.
1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into
disorder?
C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution
1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for
example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees
whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a
species and never outside of the species.
2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of
time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is
NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.
III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)
A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.
1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism
2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens
after death, or moral absolutes.
B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.
If anyone read through that all, thank you for your time. Please critique it as you see fit and feel free to be brutal. i have much more depth to each of those topics but as i said here is an outline, not my paper.
- Jordan -
- Login to post comments
- Jordan -
- Jordan -
The Hobbit - whether true or not - is an accurate biography of Bilbo Baggins' life.
hmmm interesting, your a scarry man by the way. ill skip josephus cuz i don't like that example but care to disprove tacitus's writings. hes a well known and trrusted roman historian writing around the time of nero. interesting that he talks about pilot killing Jesus and starting the whole Christian "plague." your right. if the new testament authors had the old testament in front of them they could have fufilled whatever they wanted in their story. funny that the only book they had was the torrah. most of the prophesies were in the other books not found untill LONG after the new testament was written... interesting. how'd those primative farmers and fishermen swing that one? and id also like to hear your evidence about jesus not being as good as we say becasue evidence for that is not in the Bible therefore you must have secular sources acknowleding his existence to try and twist some words around
- Jordan -
At this rate you'll have more exceptions to your rules than instances.
Apply the same rationale to any concept without testable properties: the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot in orbit around Neptune, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc. There was a phenomenology around N-Rays that made it testable, falsifiable, and a valid experiment. The inference about deities isn't extrapolated from anything; it's just a non-sequitur.
Oh, and you didn't answer my question. What specific phenomena do we test to determine whether or not a god is a factor? How do we set up a control for that experiment to make it valid?
Share them or don't.
So did the NT writers, who would have been exposed to OT prophecy. They knew the predictions, and set the fulfillment story in their own past so they wouldn't have to substantiate anything.
And Joseph Smith says there was more. What's the criteria for determining the truth in this situation?
Which is worse somehow than authors unknown? Joseph Smith is demonstrably disreputable. The authors of the OT and NT are myriad, anonymous people, with credentials unknown. Complete wild cards.
From the Atheists.org website:
Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
Read the first link in my post above for the evidence of Jesus not being so good - all from the Babble. By the way, the Josephus writing on Jesus was almost certainly forged by a bishop known as Eusebus. None of this is anything new to us - most of the things you have posted have been refuted multiple times.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
And, of course, 120 CE is WAY too late to be considered a contemporary source.
- Jordan -
Let me see if I follow this one.
Step 1: You believe in wood nymphs because you read about them;
Step 2: There is no evidence whatsoever to support wood nymphs' existence;
Step 3: You continue to believe in wood nymphs.
Is that it?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
When was the last time God told you to think for yourself?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
haha i love it. im criticised for using apologist sources and yet yours comes from an atheist sight. despite that, this critic of tacitus is so clearly another poor attempt of rationalizing your own disbelief. Tacitus would be cited by any historian as a great, accurate historian and yet the one time he mentions Jesus everyone just yells "forgery!" tacitus refers to Christians as a plague earlier in the passage and i highly doubt a forger would throw that in there. also his name was jesus Christ, had tacitus said jesus, you would have said, "oh there were many people named jesus then. instead he calls him christus, so you say oh he wouldn't have called him that. it was forged! maybe he was saying their messiah was killed. maybe all the romans refered to him as Christus whether they believed him or not. and finally, the earliest copies of the gospels were found betwen 55 ad and 85 ad. (i tend to believe it was in 65ad.) many were still living who had witnessed The whole thing. seems to me that when the gospels came out and Christianity was spreading the Romans could have halted it quite easily if Jesus didn't even exist. if he didn't exists and the gospels weren't true, what suddenly sparked the new movement?
- Jordan -
Setting aside the inaccuracies in the above statement (pick up a biology textbook and come back to this), why is "God" the default argument? Is God responsible for anything "pretty amazing"? Or merely for things sufficiently amazing?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm not following your replies to everyone else.
I hope it's not some horrible equivocation about the word "information."
And, as I'd asked, what specific test can be done to determine whether a god is a factor, and that the inference of this deliberate agency isn't a non-sequitur. That's the last time I'll ask, and without an answer I'll assume you don't have anything.
I don't really care. I was really pointing out that some undefined argument adds nothing to the conversation.
This is based on?
Begging the question, for the nth time.
last night
- Jordan -
perhaps you should pick up a biology book. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. its evidence for God NOT PROOF. i didn't say it proves God at all, i said it is evidence for him. and untill yu think of a better explanation for how it is already in our DNA than God is the ONLY explanation.
- Jordan -
What, explain DNA? I'm not sure I follow. The logical jump between the complexity of DNA and "God did it" is phenomenal. Even before that, why don't you think another unmeasurable entity is responsible for the complexity of the universe? Wood nymphs, for example.
Oh. Did you hear a voice saying "Jordan, think for yourself"?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What the heck, I'll let the first part go. But ... why is the complexity of DNA evidence for God, and not, say, wood nymphs? I mean, you've chosen a very specific invisible entity to hold responsible for something you can't explain. Doesn't Athena, for instance, get an equal shot at this, considering she's equally invisible?
I know this'll get you mad, but the process of evolution is actually a really good explanation for the pattern of DNA.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
ok heres on such evidence. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. the information for those antibodies are already coded in our DNA. so long before you got yellow fever, your body had the information to defeat it. where did that come from? in fact, EVERY virus has an antibody that is already coded for in our DNA.
history... the jewish leaders at the time were the only ones with any copies of the torah. anything else was part of the oral tradition. the jewish leaders memorized the torah and used it as there guide book. however the rest of he old testament wasn't found untill later
- Jordan -
- Jordan -
Quoting wikipedia:
This might be useful too
Variation. Just because a mutation might not affect the fitness of an organism does not mean that mutation is undone...
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Oh, I see. When you say God spoke to you, you meant you were reading the bible last night. If you heard an actual voice, that might be worrisome. But why would you chose the bible rather than other texts, like the qu'ran?
I'm not sure we could. But that's not how it appears our immune system works. That's what originally prompted my "check out a biology text" comment. It wasn't a hand-wave, I was literally asking you to open a biology textbook and review how our immune system works. It appears as though our ancestors adapted to a great number of pathogens, but your version of our immune system would allow us to defend against AIDS already, if I understand you correctly.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Good luck with your research paper. I find it hard to imagine that there will be too many difficult questions that can be brought up. This is in the fact that I don't think there will be very many atheists present to bring up the tough questions.
I agree, I enjoy reading about the Roman Empire as well. They truly learned how to use religion to control the masses and very reflective of our society today. Nero managed to successfully wag the dog by blaming the christians for the burning of Rome. This led to a massive persecution and left many innocent christians dead. I agree strong families and communities are better for society than weak family units. I am not sure you have any stats to back up your claim that theists have stronger family units than atheists. With America's over 50% divorce rate, I am not sure that atheists reflect this trend. 75% of americans claim christianity and the remaining percentage is mostly jewish and islamic. The minority of americans identify themselves as no particuliar religion. It would appear that most "christians" get divorced. I have seen the stats and it points to atheists having a lower percentage of divorce. If this is true, it pokes a hole in your hypothesis that religion breeds stronger communities. This is just something I would attack your premise on.
I would challenge your assumptions on the dangers of atheism on a couple different fronts. First and foremost, genocide is commited on a rather large scale in the OT. If you compare the scale at which Stalin and Hitler commited these autrocities, then I would concede somewhat on that. Unfortunately, there are no records to indicate how many people god told the Israelites to murder. Modern warfare has made killing very easy, so it is much more efficient than ancient weapons. This gives the illusion that comparing the two, the genocides in the OT and genocides of the modern era, as "worse" in comparison. Religion played the most important factor in the murder of countless innocent people in the OT. Religion was also important in the Salem witch trials where innocent people were killed. Again this is a matter of scale and scope, rather than some absolute morality. God told the Israelites to kill so it was justified as opposed to killing is wrong on any level. I don't believe in moral relativism so I admit my bias. If everyone believed in an absolute morality then we would not have the problems we have had throughout history. If I could go back in time to kill Hitler I would. If the bible says killing is wrong then my killing Hitler would be wrong. However, I could justify it by saying I did the world a favor. How many people would feed their family with stolen bread even if stealing is against the will of god? These are the problems with absolute morality in that it is an idealist position.
Secondly, I would challenge your assumption that countries that are more atheistic than the US are a danger to the world at large. Most countries in Europe are much more atheistic than we are. I believe England now has 50% of the population claiming no religion. Surveys put the numbers much higher in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. These countries score much higher than the US in many areas such as literacy, standard of living and lower birth mortality. I realize that this doesn't mean that there is a cause/correlation but it does bring up some interesting questions. America, being a "christian nation" has a horrible track record of human rights violations. There was slavery, genocide and imprisoning of the native population, mettling in South and Central America, unjust wars in order to profit the defense industry and the list goes on. I think our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq are terribly immoral. When was the last time atheist Sweden attacked another country pre-emptively? If you choose to show that atheism leads to immoral actions you should contrast and compare the autracities committed in the name of god.
On a more personal note, I lived in Japan for 4 years and it would be considered an atheist country. The crime rate was and is low as compared to us but that isn't necessarily a morality index. Morality is more cultural based than based on some theological absolute. The Japanese are somewhat racist. Does their attitudes toward race come from the fact that most are not christian? Just because the value the purity of their culture doesn't mean that it is an immoral act. Morals like most things are relative for the society and whoever is observing.
I think your generalization that atheism is dangerous is still unsupportable. It might work for a high school level project, but I think you need to reconsider your point because a real atheist would shred your work in a real debate. I stick by my recommendation that you try not to demonize atheism rather try to show its' shortcomings instead. Your belief that atheism is dangerous without a good example hurts your effort. The belief that thinking something is true does not make is so.
You do not need to explain your position to me. I am not out to convert you, nor am I looking to be converted. I am just offering these up as things I would attack your position on as a form of academic help. However, I am always looking to debate other areas of religion.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
The Bible is much more credible, it denies other religions, the history of islam is pretty funny and i can't belive how it got started. you can't deny the fact that there is quite a bit of correlating evidence for the Bible's accuracy.
- Jordan -
1. You still haven't addressed why changing your belief is a bad thing??
2. You can also keep the same old belief by ignoring the evidence at hand, because to change your belief would mean that you were living a lie and cannot psychologically handle the impact that your belief is false. This is related to cognitive dissonance. Dissonance is anxiety that is created when are attitudes and beliefs are contradicted by our behaviors or new evidence from the environment. In order to reduce the dissonance people either change their behaviors to fit their beliefs, change their belief systems and attitudes, or they distort the evidence in the environment to fit into their preconcieved belief system.
What would it mean to you if you gave up your belief in God?? What would it say about you and the world?
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
How very true. A testament to the detrimental effects of a "Christian Education" on young, undeveloped rationality immune systems. Note: The blue pill is also very effective at degrading adult rationality immune systems that have been compromised by misinformation, fear, and/or psychological trauma.
Ah, so you are a "One True Scotsman".
Correction, I "lost" nothing and there was no sudden revelation. It took several non-cherry-picking reads of the bible, years of intense bible study, and large doses of biblical history to recognize the blatant hypocrisy, contradictions, and fear-mongering contained in what is nothing more than a man-made work of fiction, not a book of "divine revelation". This was not an overnight process, it took years for the antibodies of logic and reason to restore my rationality immune system, despite a gallant fight put up by my faith-driven obstinance. And please, spare me the "you never really had faith in God" retort (or it's many tiresome variants) you are about to knee-jerk back at me via one of the "apologist response" hot-keys on your keyboard.
Again, true, untainted due diligence on your part would negate that statement and, consequently, this entire thread. Sorry, Jordan, but Strobelesque due diligence doesn't fly here at the RRS.
you'd be surprised how much they will refute it whether they belive it or not. they won't be biased in their cross-examination. as for those three great paragraphs you just typed up, i would agree that it would be very difficult. we arecertainly not a Christian nation, there has never been one. so its difficult to test. i can only theorize much a christian nation would prosper.
- Jordan -
The fact that we "bash" christianity more often does not mean we are threatened more by it. The fact is it is more prevelent in America than Hinduism or Buddhism. Personally, I have problems with the muslim call to prayer played on loudspeakers in Minnesota, but will tolerate it because it does not affect me personally. It does not offend me to hear it, but then again the muslims do not have the political clout of christians. As islam increases in popularity in the United States, you will find atheists speaking out more against it. We are not at all that different from christians. We just believe in 1 less god (or 3 maybe) than you do.
You even stated exactly why atheists are so "militant" here in that christianity is NOT TOLERANT. It makes no difference to most of us if you accept all others, unless it affects us. If churches don't like atheists we don't care on a personal level. However, when states can deny the rights of atheists to run for office or adopt children then there is a problem. When a state can deny a same-sex couple the same benfits of a straight couple then we are angry. The lack of concern for human life after a child is born, rather than the protection of a fetus (read a bunch of cells) bothers us. The support of christians killing and maiming innocent Iraqi men, women and children bothers us.
Chrisitianity is the most reasonable because it is part of our heritage in America. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would find islam to be more reasonable. If I read you the story of Jack and the Beanstalk then ask you if it were true you would laugh and say of course not, But suppose I put that same story in the bible between the tower of bable and the flood. Then most people wouldn't even bat an eye stating that it is unequivocally true. As for your common claim that it is possible to prove something doesn't exist I digress. Weak-atheists don't claim that positively no god exists. You are mistakingly calling all atheists strong-atheists. I guess you think that atheists hate god too, I don't blame you because I hear christians say that a lot. We are all guilty of intolerance so I won't make excuses for myself. At least if I am intolerant I am not proud of it. The statement that christianity is intolerant is smug. All atheists ask for is equality not tolerance.
The division in America nowadays is disheartening and I don't blame the atheists for it. We are a minority here in America so how can we create these problems? We can solve most of the problems in America if the religious right would be willing to compromise a little.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Sure, no problem.
This is where it gets a bit muddy for me as far as the use of logic is concerned. There are a few religious texts that deny other religions. That's the main reason many people on this site will call religion "divisive", and not really a reason to consider one more accurate than the other. The texts are also often self-contradictory, advocating capital punishment in one section, and love of your neighbour in the next.
Do you believe it's the word of God, for instance, that recommends stoning people to death in Deuteronomy?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Jordan -
You are confusing intolerance for credibility, and anyway most religions seem to do that.
Pot, meet kettle.
I can. I've yet to see any valid evidence of this.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
So even though there is no available evidence of any kind that Adam and Eve were created by supernatural means, I should just go ahead and accept it as fact ?
Also, in support of your argument can you provide me with any current examples of God performing fantastic miracles or should I just accept it on blind faith ?
Sigghhhh, Pascals wager again.
Seriously is there ANY logical fallacy you haven't used yet in this thread?
Pascals wager is a flase dichotomy - If Islam is true you'll go to the same hell we do. It's also not true that you lose nothing by believing - time wasted praying/going to church, believing in nonsense, feeling guilty over things you don't need to, illogical restrictions on behavior (sexual mostly.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Jordan -
- Jordan -
- Jordan -
Let's recall how you started this thread:
"In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant"
We can ignore the "in contrast to atheism", because it's not really necessary to the argument. First, your belief in God seems to be based on a book and a couple of weak premises that aren't actually consistent. I think it was that you believe that the universe was created, and the creator was God because it's in the bible. That set of statements is unequivocally logically unconnected. At the very least, the leaps there require some explanation. So "logically consistent" hasn't happened yet.
Second, "empirically adequate" so far is one piece of almost evidence and a book. Not really adequate.
Third, experientially relevant ... doesn't actually mean anything. If you mean "subjectively interesting", then sure. But that doesn't by any means strengthen its rationality.
I'm sure you can do better. I'm cutting into your arguments because I like a good fight, so don't take any of this personally. Talk to some more people, strengthen your argument, or even tweak your thesis if you like. But if you get exhausted, you may eventually want to ask yourself why it's so difficult to argue for a belief that's supposed to be correct.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Jordan -
- Jordan -
Actually, anything measurable would do. But since we can't measure the immeasurable, we remain unconvinced. (Hint: what happens if we find a far superior method of measuring that allows us to measure the immeasurable?)
While that may seem like an obvious statement to you, among people who require evidence, it doesn't actually look like a positive statement. People who live rationally need more than faith to consider something real. Your premise, again, was that your belief in God was rational. We refute that claim. We do not refute that you have faith in (and belief in) God. You demonstrate that. What you do not demonstrate is that your belief is rational.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
i realize that. the biggest problem is whether or not it can be rational to believe in the immeasurable.... do you belive in logic or love? neither can be measured but its quite rational to belive in logic.
- Jordan -
And now the love argument.
Seriously, every single argument you have brought here has been refuted numerous times. Read some of the old threads FFS! Some of them were actually refuted centuries ago!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because, to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
Hebrews 10:26
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."
2 Peter2: 20-21
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.'
Okay Jordan, it's time for you to tell us what these scripture passages really mean because it's obvious that your interpretation automatically takes precedence over dissenting views, including those foolish Protestant Christians ( eg, Methodists ) who adhere to Arminian doctrines.
To "understand even the basics of Christianity" implies there is a correct way to interpret the basics of Christianity. Still a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
I was "saved", along with all the other trite apologist metaphors you may have queued up. Please see the bolded, underlined text above. Your variation is included in that set.
In other words, a clear lack of understanding, aka "ignorance".
When and if that time truly comes, we'll be overjoyed to remove the "Theist" label from your RRS account.
Sorry, more ignorance of evolution...it explains the origin of species. There's even a whole book about it if memory serves me.
As for your "only" displays of ignorance, sorry, but I need only refer to your OP:
1. Everything under Section I demonstrates your ignorance of logic.
2. Section II.A clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific method.
3. Section II.B, the creationist version of the second law of thermodynamics, more ignorance.
4. Section II.C, ignorance of evolution, fueled by creationist pseudoscience.
5. Section III.A.1, you forgot to include Stalin in this fallacy. Neither committed their atrocities "in the name of atheism" or due to the "teachings of atheism" (a fallacy within a fallacy...you're really out-doing yourself here Jordan)
6. Section III.A.2, a string of ad hoc, question-begging notions separated by commas. More ignorance of logical fallacies.
7. Section B, No, theism simply presupposes that these notions constitute "important life questions" in the first place and provide highly implausible and conveniently unfalsifiable "answers" to these questions.
Thank god
Presumably one of these days you'll learn to type and/or spell. Until then we'll just have to put up with it.
Okay, what do we have... one gaps, and a side order of Argument from Incredulity/Ignorance. So, to do everyone a favor and keep it concise, just because there is a gap in current knowledge doesn't mean that you have room to squelch a god in there, and just because you "don't see how any kind of matter could be infinite" doesn't disprove anything.
The best information I have is that the singularity "exploded" because such a high mass point in space is inherently unstable. The point is, I don't know, but I don't need to pretend the tooth fairy or Kawa no Kami or Jesus made it happen.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
That is not what I asked, but it appears that you seem to be unwilling to change your beliefs despite the evidence.
I am asking if you actually gave up your belief in God by objectively examining the evidence, what would it mean for you life?? What would you be giving up??
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
sure!
again this helps my arguement. if we delibertly keep sinnning even after we recieve the truth (of God's existence) then we will be punished. yes christians still sin but they try not to and God knows there heart. if we keep sinning delibertly, then we don't truly ove God, are not saved and deserve hell.
this once again helps my argument, thanks! Jesus even described this person in the parable of the sewer. they were enlightened by Christianity and maybe even joined in the religion for a while but turned away. That verse says it woulod have been better that they not have found the truth in the first place.
nice try though!
- Jordan -
I assume you to mean that some christians don't support the war. Most christians do however support the war because they view muslims as the enemy, not of the US, but of their faith. Before you plead my ignorance of most christians I will have you know that my father in law is a southern baptist preacher. I don't know what denomination you claim, but my views have been primarily shaped by their example. Is this ok for me to do? Of course not so I try to put my personal opinions off the table when discussing politics with them and instead counter their emotion with facts. They are very much in favor of the attack on Iraq and I found out it was only because they are a muslim country. Trust me, I work for the Dept of Defense and war is our business, but I am also against the war even though it keeps money flowing into our base. I know it may seem hypocritical that I can work for an entity that I disagree with on a key point, but I rationalize it in my own mind like any good theist rationalizes the sins of the church.
I can't claim to know of any instances in which it would be necessary to invoke the name of god in a classroom, but I can imagine that it is not against the law. The problem with the 1964 law barring prayer in school is that it makes it seem that all schools have become religion free zones. School administrators are the most at fault because they don't understand the judgment passed down by the Supreme Court. In other words it is easier not to have to deal with anything dealing with religion. My son's high school out here in liberal California has clubs that are religious in nature. If a quran is allowed in school and a bible is not then definitely get a lawyer and go to the Supremem Court. I find this goes against the law so if there is a case you know of I'd like to see this taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The judgement is not that difficult to follow, but people read too much into most things. Most atheists will agree that religious clubs in school, silent prayer and wearing jesus loves you shirts have no bearing on our lives so we can give a shit less. If schools are exceeding the law then we all need to step in and fix the problem.
If you think that gays have no right to be happy, then I can assume that it is only a matter of time before the atheists are next. It wouldn't surprise me that we are next because we are one of the least trusted minority groups in America. I agree that I might not be liberal enough when I say that I don't necessarily agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt myself. I have always considered myself to be pretty liberal and proud of that fact. However, I question the ability of 2 men or 2 women to raise children. Does this mean that they aren't capable? I don't know because most studies are inconclusive at the efficiacy of same sex parents. If I may ask, what rights do gays have that offend you? Is it the right to go to school without being harassed, the right to equal employment without discrimination or the rights in some states to have a civil union?
I am beginning to see your true colors in that you seem to be less interested in a research paper than you are at witnessing to us.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Wow, what a totally lame answer.
I suspect your omnipotent God can't actually live up to your miraculous claims so it makes you angry when a person asks a perfectly legitimate question concerning your "all powerful God."
It's simply a matter of "put up or shut up" and I can only assume from your evasive answer that we are both in agreement as to the probability of God actually performing anything even remotely miraculous. Hence your anger toward me.
- Jordan -
Not sure how those verses support your point as you believe salvation is never lost.
Seems your view is in direct contradiction to the Biblical view. If there is no way one could lose salvation, why even mention a "falling away"?
Or are you just trying to move the goalposts to allow Calvinism to match the Bible?
"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