The Atheist Challenge [Kill Em With Kindness]

pyrokineticist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Challenge [Kill Em With Kindness]

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...    

     Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist."  It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god."  Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement.  No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.

     Which brings us to the crux of the matter.  My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.  I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all "irrational belief," as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular.  Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we?  If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion.  Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being.  If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so.  If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it!  Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not.  After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct?  Avoid such hypocrisy, then.  The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.    

And to repeat myself: I know full and well that not every atheist is guilty of this.

Thanks

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: triften

seth wrote:
triften wrote:

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it.

So since you are sitting in the "default" position, does that me you don't have to support your stance?

An evidentiary default, though not a cultural one. And, no, one doesn't have to defend a non-claim the same way one would a claim. A non-concept demands no substance, and is always substantiated in that regard until a competing reality comes along. In other words, until an adherent to one of these cults backs up their stuff.

seth wrote:
I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist.  Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself.  It was written 700 years before Christ's death.  Can science do that?  I don't think so.  Science is just the study of what already exists.  It doesn't create things, and most of the time it can't even explain them.  Science is just on means of people trying to figure out what is going on in this world.  People trying to find meaning for life, or trying to remove meaning from life.

Wait... are you trying to substantiate the Old Testament prophecy with New Testament claims? Holy failure, Batman. The text was written with prior knowledge of the prophecies, and the the supposed fulfillment never substantiated. By that standard, any sequel to a fictional work could be considered prophetic fulfillment.


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

seth wrote:


Nice try jcgadfly, but there is tons of evidence regarding the life of Christ. It's very well documented. Christ was not the figment of someone's imagination. He's talked about throughout history and not just in the Bible. That was an easy dismiss but I'm not accepting that. There is way too much evidence that says otherwise.

BTW, be a man and take a stance, it's no fun talking to you if you don't believe anything. So take a stance and try to back it up. Your mind may grow because of it.

What's so hard to understand about my stance? It says your position is full of refuse. And I brought as much backing as you did for your position. But since you asked so nicely...

What would you like to bring up? The interpolation in Josephus that wasn't written by him? The stuff from Roman historians who wrote about Chrestos (not Christ)? The early church fathers who confused Chrestos with Christos and spun like dervishes to harmonize the two?

At best, those show Christianity existed, not necesarily Christ. Much of it also came well after the gospels were written so they do more to support my point than yours. The early church fathers had the same reason to sell Jesus as the gospel writers - keep the sheep in line.

The gospels aren't history. They were written with an agenda - " But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

What other evidence do you have? If you've got tons, drag a couple shovelfuls over here.

BTW, I do like the horizontal vagina sketch that's part of your avatar...oh wait, you think that has something to do with the male Jesus. 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: seth

magilum wrote:

seth wrote:
triften wrote:

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it.

So since you are sitting in the "default" position, does that me you don't have to support your stance?

An evidentiary default, though not a cultural one. And, no, one doesn't have to defend a non-claim the same way one would a claim. A non-concept demands no substance, and is always substantiated in that regard until a competing reality comes along. In other words, until an adherent to one of these cults backs up their stuff.

seth wrote:
I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist. Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself. It was written 700 years before Christ's death. Can science do that? I don't think so. Science is just the study of what already exists. It doesn't create things, and most of the time it can't even explain them. Science is just on means of people trying to figure out what is going on in this world. People trying to find meaning for life, or trying to remove meaning from life.

Wait... are you trying to substantiate the Old Testament prophecy with New Testament claims? Holy failure, Batman. The text was written with prior knowledge of the prophecies, and the the supposed fulfillment never substantiated. By that standard, any sequel to a fictional work could be considered prophetic fulfillment.

I just read that book, I love prophacy claims because their apologists never lack the naked assertions and ambiguity I am never suprised to see. It is easy to shout "See, I was right" when the apologists reads ambigious language and incerts what they want into it after they read it.

Of course the Jews talked of a messiah, but what Christians dont want to consider is that early Christians looked at the Jewish motifs and worked it into a new religion and, not because of magic being real, but because of effective marketing, were able to spread their new idea based on an old religon.

For the same reason Ra was popular in north Africa for over 3 thousand years....for the same reason Islam is popular and for the same reason Jews are insistant on staying in the middle east, is quite simple. It has nothing to do with any of these religions emperically proving their fantastic claims, it has to do with defending the ego of the alpha male mentality. These religions are popular, not because a god exists, but because their advocates believe they exist and are good at marketing. 

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: I

pyrokineticist wrote:

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...

Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist." It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god." Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement. .

NO! NO! NO, no, no! *stamps feet* NO! *screams*

Read here: Dispelling the False Etymologies of Atheism and Atheist

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote:

seth wrote:

 

Can science predicts thing that are unpredictable? The examples you gave are not very persuasive. Those are things that can be calculated. Can you calculate the day you will die? Can you predict the value of the dollar in 10 years? That is why Isaiah 53 is remarkable, and shows that there is a power outside of our world that is not limited like we are. It predicts something that cannot be calculated.

Hello seth. Regarding  biblical evidence to support your claims:

Followers of Judaism, who being theists fully embrace the idea of an all powerful God and who also claim Isaiah as a prophet, will immediately reject your concept of God :

No triune God in Jewish faith

( as well as your concept of the Messiah )

Jewish Messiah is not God,

He will come in victory and establish earthly rule upon his arrival,

The Messiah was never intended to be a sacrifice

My point is simply that biblical evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and that even among the "god-believers" there is no concensus as to where the evidence leads.

If even theists cannot agree among themselves as to what the alledged "evidence" is implying is it any wonder that atheists would be skeptical of their claims ?

Even among Christians themselves the specifics of absolute truth vary according to which denomination you ask.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: shikko

seth wrote:
shikko wrote:

Can "science" do what, make predictions? Absolutely; throw a ball of known weight at a known angle and speed and you can make a very accurate guess as to where it will land. Can it make long-term predictions? Sure; the sun will eventually go nova and destroy the inner planets (this one is sort of cheating, though, since none of us will be around to check).

Can science predicts thing that are unpredictable?

Isn't that like asking if someone can make something unmakeable, like a four-sided triangle? Did you mistype, or do you mean it as written?

Quote:

The examples you gave are not very persuasive. Those are things that can be calculated.

And the reason we can calculate them is, you guessed it, SCIENCE. Handy, ain't it? It makes me wonder what we'll be able to learn about the formation of life given a few centuries.

Quote:
Can you calculate the day you will die?

Anyone who decides on suicide can calculate the day they die. Although to be fair, that's more deciding than calculating.

Quote:

Can you predict the value of the dollar in 10 years?

Value in terms of exchange rate with the British pound? The price of gold? The cost of Cheerios?

Quote:
That is why Isaiah 53 is remarkable, and shows that there is a power outside of our world that is not limited like we are. It predicts something that cannot be calculated.

That's only true if you buy it. If you don't, it's a collection of middle eastern mythology, and not much else. The fact that the sequel was written by people who were intimately familiar with the first volume has already been pointed out; if it didn't conform, they wouldn't have been particularly persuasive.

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


OccamsChainsaw
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Ah, an Intelligent

Ah, an Intelligent Designist, I've been looking for one of your ilk.  And I want you to remember that you provided the pieces of the metaphore.

So, you want a watch and you have all these pieces from watches in a bag.  There has to be energy put into the system so just laying the pieces on a table isn't going to work.  You need to shake the bag so the pieces jumble together.  Then we need some form of natural selection.  Why, Seth, if you're not busy, would you make the selections?  Pick out the pieces that look like they're forming some portion of the watch's mechanism.  Now since we actually want a completed product in your life time, you should probably study a little bit about the construction of watches so you know what pieces to select.  This is something that life's intelligent designer must have failed to do when starting out.  Else, why would there be so many failures in evolution's trash can?  One would almost think that Lucky Selector would be just as viable a name.  Lucky, of course, is a relative term.  I supose that 99% of all the species that have existed but are now extinct wouldn't consider themselves lucky.

But back to the bag and its shaken contents of watch parts and after a hundred or a thousand selections you have all the pieces (subassemblies if you will) of a very nice pocket watch.  Here of course is where my little allegory comes to a screeching halt.  I knew it would from the very beginning but I just couldn't help myself.  There's no way for all these inanimate pieces to assemble themselves.  Seth, we need a miracle.

Wait a minute - don't do anything magical yet.  I'd rather cheat instead.  What if the cogs and gears and springs and all the other whatnots weren't made of stainless steal and bronze?  What if they were made of four simple amino acids that only bound together in certain set ways?  We could probably watch them assemble themselves in ways far more intricate than a watch and do more interesting things than give us the time of day.  I guess there's something to the slogan, 'better living through chemisrty.'


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, if you really must

Well, if you really must hear it:

 

All mainstream religions (as well as any other lesser known ones I know of) have elements within them that cannot exist within our assumed universe, and therefore teach falsehoods (some to greater degrees than others).

 

If only all challenges in life were this simple to meet.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
OccamsChainsaw wrote: Wait

OccamsChainsaw wrote:

Wait a minute - don't do anything magical yet. I'd rather cheat instead. What if the cogs and gears and springs and all the other whatnots weren't made of stainless steal and bronze? What if they were made of four simple amino acids that only bound together in certain set ways? We could probably watch them assemble themselves in ways far more intricate than a watch and do more interesting things than give us the time of day. I guess there's something to the slogan, 'better living through chemisrty.'

Well, first, there was nothing to assemble the raw ingredients to make the amino acid.  Second, the was nothing to mix the amino acids together so that they could bond together, plus the extra ingredients needed to make that happen.  Third who is shaking the so called "bag" for a billion years to make it happen?  Where did the "bag" come from anyway?  Ok now for a real question, let's say by some miracle that despite the odds a short DNA strand is formed.  What's to say that it means anything.  If formed at random, it's probably useless anyway.  But I'm willing to work with you here because I'm interested where you are going.  Ok you have a simple and useful piece of DNA.  How do you get that piece of DNA to do anything.  DNA in and of itself is not life, it's more like the instructions for life.  How does nature do what scientists are not able to, and make life?  I don't have centuries to wait for this answer, my life depends on it.  That is why for now, my default position is God exists, prove to me otherwise.  Because, you know that argument, Christians have nothing to lose if they are wrong, we will go on living a good life, respecting one another and treating each other with love, if we are good Christians.  If an atheist is wrong he has everything to lose, that's why my default position is what it is.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth

seth wrote:
OccamsChainsaw wrote:

Wait a minute - don't do anything magical yet. I'd rather cheat instead. What if the cogs and gears and springs and all the other whatnots weren't made of stainless steal and bronze? What if they were made of four simple amino acids that only bound together in certain set ways? We could probably watch them assemble themselves in ways far more intricate than a watch and do more interesting things than give us the time of day. I guess there's something to the slogan, 'better living through chemisrty.'

Well, first, there was nothing to assemble the raw ingredients to make the amino acid.  Second, the was nothing to mix the amino acids together so that they could bond together, plus the extra ingredients needed to make that happen.

It's been replicated in a lab, as have self-replicating molecules. Deludedgod's apt to clean your clock, or watch as the case may be, if you keep this line of rhetoric.

seth wrote:
Third who is shaking the so called "bag" for a billion years to make it happen?

Begging the question. "Who" implies an agency, which you've not justified inferring.

seth wrote:
Where did the "bag" come from anyway?

Words fail.

seth wrote:
Ok now for a real question, let's say by some miracle that despite the odds a short DNA strand is formed.  What's to say that it means anything.

Virologists?

seth wrote:
If formed at random, it's probably useless anyway.

Argument from incredulity.

seth wrote:
But I'm willing to work with you here because I'm interested where you are going.  Ok you have a simple and useful piece of DNA.  How do you get that piece of DNA to do anything.  DNA in and of itself is not life, it's more like the instructions for life.  How does nature do what scientists are not able to, and make life?

Fallacy of equivocation. You're using "make" to imply an agency where none may be necessary, and none has been justifiably inferred by you. At best, you have the statement that we haven't the knowledge and ability to create life, which still leaves your agency inference an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitur.

seth wrote:
I don't have centuries to wait for this answer, my life depends on it.

Sigh.

seth wrote:
That is why for now, my default position is God exists, prove to me otherwise.

That's not a default position, it's a very specific and unjustified claim. You're just shifting the burden of proof; which, if accepted as a criteria for argument, can justify literally any conceivable claim. You'd be forced, unless you apply some arbitrary criteria and commit special pleading, to accept every conceivable notion as true unless explicitly excluded from possibility.

seth wrote:
Because, you know that argument, Christians have nothing to lose if they are wrong, we will go on living a good life, respecting one another and treating each other with love, if we are good Christians.  If an atheist is wrong he has everything to lose, that's why my default position is what it is.

Why do so many Christians think Pascal's Wager is so potent. It is, at best, bifurcation.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...I don't usually do

...I don't usually do these, because clearly quotee already has it set in their mind how the rules of their assumed universe (if you will) works. Evidence and facts are no longer really relevent, because they are discarded in light of the fact that they don't mesh with the laws of the universe as he sees them (however flawed that perception may be).

That said, just this one time...

Quote:
Let's say the you have a watch for example. You take apart the watch and lay all the pieces on the table. Now let's say that instead of a watchmaker, you have time, barometric pressure, wind, rain, sunlight. How long will it take the parts of a watch to evolve into a watch? It would never happen, not in an infinite amount of years. Now to make it more complex, instead of having the parts, you actually only have the raw materials to make the parts. So first the parts need to somehow form on their own and then somehow put themselvles together. This is how I picture evolution at the very beginning, because without life there can be no evolution. Ok, I took a very simple example of a watch, but life, even the most basic living thing is way more complex than a watch, yet you want me to believe that somehow, from the raw materials around us, that life was able to form itself? Now that is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard in my entire life! And to think, scientists cannot even replicate what time was able to do by chance. That is why I believe that there is an intellegent designer who created everything around us, one who is infinitely more intellegent than us.

So, to begin with, this analogy effectively provides us with a law within seth's universe that we can examine, then bring over to our universe to see if it matches or can fit alongside it's laws. If it does, both universes can co-exist (in otherwords, they are one and the same thing, and the belief is correct in any sense):

 

The Law 

 

Complex systems require intelligent guidance / intervention / maintenance in their creation, and likely their continued operation.

 

The watch example leaves us with an impression that this is true in our assumed universe; watches cannot assemble themselves according to our laws. Neither can anything (I hesitate to use that word here; I know that someone is totally going to make me look like a dumbass by posting a link to some awesome robot that can de-assemble and re-assemble itself) mechanical.

 

However, looking at non-mechanical examples, we not only see that complex systems can develop without intelligent oversight, but that intelligent oversight cannot often create the most complex systems we know of. The simplest example would be that of human reproduction. Not a single person in the world, provided any length of time, could transform a deconstructed human body into a functioning human being - yet the simple act of procreation sets in motion the extremely complex, yet totally autonomous process of growing a human being.

 

Further examples would be things like the birthing of a sun, formation of a planet, building of a thunderhead, etc.  

 

So, seth's law cannot apply to our assumed reality. Either his law is correct, in which case we exist in his universe and ours is false (our perceptions are lying to us), or his law is incorrect, in case he exists in our universe (his perceptions are lying to him).

 

I'm inclined to go with the latter. Of course, I'm biased in favor of my perceptions / assumptions.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
 Seth, Please do some

 Seth,

Please do some research on the following subjects:

1) Abiogenesis (which, btw, != evolution)

2) Why Pascal's Wager is invalid (available on this site) 

3) The fact that atheists can be good people

4) The problem with the "God of the Gaps" 

You'll be better informed about what you are arguing about. 

Thanks,

Triften 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   I sense a buddha has

   I sense a buddha has come aboard

he goes by  Kevin R Brown Smile

so what is a buddha , ???

 WISE ....

 

 

 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
creating life

If scientists have already created life, than why does this article say that they are still trying to do it and do expect to be able to for several years. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/&GT1=10252 can you send me an article that confirms that they have created life.  I would think that I would have heard about it, that's a pretty major accomplishment.  Thanks for your condescending aproach, very kind indeed.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Just because this is a

Just because this is a major theme in seth's posts:

 

Quote:
I don't think that you can prove that God doesn't exist with 100% cetainty...

 

Alongside many notions that there are no absolute turths.

 

I disagree on both accounts.

 

For the latter, consider the fact that you absolutely must exist. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to consider it either way (this, of course, does not mean that you must exist in the way you percieve yourself to exist. That's merely an assumption).

 

For the former, I can say that with 100% certainty that God cannot exist within our assumed universe. He does not conform to the absolute laws that govern it, and everything within it.

 

Taking away the assumption that our universe is not what we actually exists within and / or exists as we percieve it, yes - there is some degree of chance that God exists within the realm of the 'actual' universe. The chance is absolutely miniscule, however, given that the assumptions we base our existence in this universe on are the same ones we fell back on when theorizing the concept of God (so, odds are that if this universe isn't actually real, the term 'God' - along with everything else - is no longer likely to have any application) - and believing in God's existence (much less vocally and publicly so) is absolutely ludicrous.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I sense a buddha has

Quote:
I sense a buddha has come aboard

he goes by  Kevin R Brown Smile

so what is a buddha , ???

 WISE ....

 

Me? While I thank-you for the complement good sir, I'm afraid I'll accept no such delegation. I'm a damn moron, actually... Hell, I didn't even spell 'venomous' right in my sig.

 

Sigh. Fixing...

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: If scientists

seth wrote:
If scientists have already created life, than why does this article say that they are still trying to do it and do expect to be able to for several years. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/&GT1=10252 can you send me an article that confirms that they have created life.  I would think that I would have heard about it, that's a pretty major accomplishment.  Thanks for your condescending aproach, very kind indeed.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to have a conversation if you're not going to pay attention to the words being written.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  yeah you ,  buddha 

  yeah you ,  buddha 

know one when I see one !

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: For

Kevin R Brown wrote:

For the former, I can say that with 100% certainty that God cannot exist within our assumed universe. He does not conform to the absolute laws that govern it, and everything within it.

Look up pantheism

Quote:

The chance is absolutely miniscule

How did you calculate this probablility?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Look up

Quote:
Look up pantheism

 

Pantheism, as I understand it, does not see 'God' represented as a magical / omnipotent deity or being. Rather, 'God' is merely the label for the laws of the assumed universe.

 

Of course, my understanding here may be incorrect. In either case, given that a magical and omnipotent being cannot exist within the laws of our assumed universe, I stand by my previous statement.

 

If such a God does indeed exist, our assumptions and perceptions of our universe are incorrect, and we in fact live in a different universe than the one we assume to altogether.

 

Quote:
How did you calculate this probablility?

 

How many possible magical deities are there that could possibly exist instead of God, in the event that our assumed universe is false and the actual universe involves such a deity or deities?

 

An infinite number, of course.

 

Since we have no reason to give God better odds than any other one of the infinite number of possible deities in terms of existing in the event our assumptions are false, we might represent an equation like this:

 

Y / X = N

 

Where Y would by God, X would be the infinite number of possible deities, and N would be God's chances of existing. Of course, N's value can't be numerically represented, since X's value is completely arbitrary.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Pantheism, as I understand it, does not see 'God' represented as a magical / omnipotent deity or being. Rather, 'God' is merely the label for the laws of the assumed universe.

Your assertion was that you were 100% certain that god can't exist within our known physical laws. Panthiesm is a from of theism that contradicts your assertion.

Quote:

Of course, my understanding here may be incorrect. In either case, given that a magical and omnipotent being cannot exist within the laws of our assumed universe, I stand by my previous statement.

OK. So now you qualify what you meant by god and limited it magical, omnipotent entities. But if such an entity is magical and omnipotent then it CAN exist within the laws of our assumed universe by virtue of its magical omnipotence.

Quote:

If such a God does indeed exist, our assumptions and perceptions of our universe are incorrect, and we in fact live in a different universe than the one we assume to altogether.

Your assumptions and perceptions would be incorrect. There are plenty of people that claim to perceive god.

 

Quote:
How many possible magical deities are there that could possibly exist instead of God, in the event that our assumed universe is false and the actual universe involves such a deity or deities?

No magical deities exist instead of god? By definition god exists in supremecy to all beings, magical or otherwise.

 

Quote:

Since we have no reason to give God better odds than any other one of the infinite number of possible deities in terms of existing in the event our assumptions are false, we might represent an equation like this:

Y / X = N

Where Y would by God, X would be the infinite number of possible deities, and N would be God's chances of existing. Of course, N's value can't be numerically represented, since X's value is completely arbitrary.

Wow. This is such a balatant butchering of probability I'm not sure how to answer it. Basically you are trying to establish the probabliity of a single event happening from an infinite set of possiblities. When doing that, you can't just say x/y=n. For one thing, I could turn it around and say that because the probablity of god is non-zero, an infinite number of attempts would have a 100% chance of god eventually "happening". It's been a long time since I took statistics, but If I remember correctly, you need to establish a probability function as a definite integral.


OccamsChainsaw
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Well, first,

seth wrote:

Well, first, there was nothing to assemble the raw ingredients to make the amino acid.  Second, the was nothing to mix the amino acids together so that they could bond together, plus the extra ingredients needed to make that happen.  Third who is shaking the so called "bag" for a billion years to make it happen?  Where did the "bag" come from anyway?  Ok now for a real question, let's say by some miracle that despite the odds a short DNA strand is formed.  What's to say that it means anything.  If formed at random, it's probably useless anyway.  But I'm willing to work with you here because I'm interested where you are going.  Ok you have a simple and useful piece of DNA.  How do you get that piece of DNA to do anything.  DNA in and of itself is not life, it's more like the instructions for life.  How does nature do what scientists are not able to, and make life?  I don't have centuries to wait for this answer, my life depends on it.  That is why for now, my default position is God exists, prove to me otherwise.  Because, you know that argument, Christians have nothing to lose if they are wrong, we will go on living a good life, respecting one another and treating each other with love, if we are good Christians.  If an atheist is wrong he has everything to lose, that's why my default position is what it is.

 

The 'bag' I referred to is, of course, the sun in a thin disguise.  I thought the 'energy' clue would be enough of a hint.  And I suppose you've never heard of Campbell's Primordial Soup.  It existed before all the dietary concerns we're plagued with now.  It was high in salts and cholesteral and all those other things that clog arteries and raise blood pressure.  This solution was constantly stirred by the forces of wind and tides; all driven by energy from the bag - I mean sun.

And through the very explainable magic of chemistry these little string thingys formed - most likely not DNA and more likely a form of pre-RNA.  Most definately, this was not life.  Yet.  But I think, if you honestly think it through, you could see how life might have formed.

I've cut my explanation short and will rely on your mental faculties because I want to concentrate on this 'nothing to lose' stance.  I think that people who fall back to that position have everything to lose.  Such a stance is contradictory to the heroic nature of humankind.  What drives such a stance?  Probably more than fear it receives its energy from laziness.  God did this.  And god did that.  And god will take care of me in the end.  And these other people - well we know where they're going.  How secure you are.  How smug.  You don't ever have to think again.  The one thing we got out of all those billions of years of titanic struggle you have forfeited.  Which of course, is exactly what your pastor, what your organized religion and your government want.  They're more than willing to do your thinking for you.

What kind of god is it that leads you to a conclusion that contradicts your nature?  One would almost inevitably conclude that such an entity was invented by those in power to keep those out of power . . . out of power.  Unless of course one stopped thinking at that fallback position.  Then one would never realize such a conclusion.

Now it looks to me like you only sought temporary shelter in that bunker.  You know, that's fine.  We all need to hunker down from time to time.  When I face such times I usually watch a movie with gratuitous explosions and swords or lasers - or both.  And oh yes, scantily clad women.  Then I'm ready come out and return to being the hero of my own life.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your assertion was

Quote:
Your assertion was that you were 100% certain that god can't exist within our known physical laws. Panthiesm is a from of theism that contradicts your assertion.

 

This is, effectively, just semantics. As you point-out here...

 

Quote:
OK. So now you qualify what you meant by god and limited it magical, omnipotent entities. But if such an entity is magical and omnipotent then it CAN exist within the laws of our assumed universe by virtue of its magical omnipotence.

 

I qualified my statement appropriately. Of course, I shouldn't really need to: it's already quite obvious that I'm singling out entities of the supernatural.

 

And no, it cannot. The moment such an entity did come to exist within our universe, most of our assumptions become false and the universe itself changes (the laws no longer apply).

 

Quote:
Your assumptions and perceptions would be incorrect. There are plenty of people that claim to perceive god.

 

Correct. My assumptions would become false, and my universe would change, if you like. For all intents and purposes, however, consider that 'my' and 'our', from a philosophical standapoint, are entirely the same term. I'm assured of my own existence (which I refer to as a collective 'our', since the notion that I'm really an individual 'I' is an assumption) while 'your' existence, along with everyone elses, is an assumtpion.

 

Edit: Though, on this same note, I've yet to run into someone who does not share my assumptions regarding newtonian physics. I guess they're out there.

 

Quote:
No magical deities exist instead of god? By definition god exists in supremecy to all beings, magical or otherwise.

 

But there are an infinite number of conceptual Gods, or God-like ideas, if you will. So the God in question, supreme to all of everything, could come in any number of forms (for that matter, 'supremecy' over 'everything' is being too distinctive. What if God was everything? Or, the inverse, what if everything was God?).

 

Quote:
Wow. This is such a balatant butchering of probability...

 

I'm terrible at math, have very limited knowledge of probability, and essentially just made something up to try and convey my thoughts on the matter at hand. There's no need to be condescending or snide - simply pointing-out the error would have been enough.

 

The gist of what I'm getting at is that if our assumptions about the universe are incorrect, then our concepts like 'creation', 'knowledge', 'life', etc all fall into doubt. At which point the question of God becomes either irrelevant or inapplicable.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

The gist of what I'm getting at is that if our assumptions about the universe are incorrect, then our concepts like 'creation', 'knowledge', 'life', etc all fall into doubt. At which point the question of God becomes either irrelevant or inapplicable.

Isn't this like saying if "I'm wrong then nothing makes sense"?It seems like a rather obvious conclusion whether theist or atheist. 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
intrigued

Ok, It's apperant to me that the debate between atheists and theists is an ongoing one that will never end.  There are highly intellegent scientists who look at the same information and come to different conclusions of what it means.  Likewise, atheists and theists interpret the world in different ways.  I have to admit that I've never given atheism much though or value, but now I'm intrigued.  Christianity is what I would call a prepackaged belief system that can be studied and applied to life.  Atheism on the other hand has no such system, and some have said it is a non-stance and therefore needs no backing.  Well, I don't believe that, because a fundamental believe or "unbelief" has ramifications for the  rest of your life.  All that I've seen here and discussed has to do with science and logic.  What I am curious about now is how atheism fits into the rest of your life.  For example, love, as defined in the Bible has its own contectual meaning and it also gives reasons why to love and the ramifications of love.  Since love is not very scientific, how does an atheist address it.  What importance is love given in your life and what reason do you have to practice love.  And and not talking about sex for those with twisted minds.  This is just one example, but please let me know how atheism affects you life as a whole.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Ok, It's

seth wrote:
Ok, It's apperant to me that the debate between atheists and theists is an ongoing one that will never end. There are highly intellegent scientists who look at the same information and come to different conclusions of what it means. Likewise, atheists and theists interpret the world in different ways. I have to admit that I've never given atheism much though or value, but now I'm intrigued. Christianity is what I would call a prepackaged belief system that can be studied and applied to life. Atheism on the other hand has no such system, and some have said it is a non-stance and therefore needs no backing. Well, I don't believe that, because a fundamental believe or "unbelief" has ramifications for the rest of your life. All that I've seen here and discussed has to do with science and logic. What I am curious about now is how atheism fits into the rest of your life. For example, love, as defined in the Bible has its own contectual meaning and it also gives reasons why to love and the ramifications of love. Since love is not very scientific, how does an atheist address it. What importance is love given in your life and what reason do you have to practice love. And and not talking about sex for those with twisted minds. This is just one example, but please let me know how atheism affects you life as a whole.

Christianity is a prepackaged system - I like that. My question is - does it package the beliefs or the believer? The believers I've run into act more like cookie-cutter Christ-bots than people.

You had no God-concept at birth (you were an atheist). Theism is a learned behavior. If my late turn to atheism has had ramifications, they are more toward being more free to express myself and accept my emotions (positive and negative) for what they are instead of slapping the weight of "sin" on them. I feel less stress now than when I was trying to live the standards of Christianity according to the Bible and my church (which were often in conflict though many try not to see that).

I have to disagree with your statement that feelings of love are not scientific. It is the result of chemicals released in the brain triggered by the stimluli associated with one you deeply care for (can't get much more scientific than that).

Love is very important to humans (theist and atheist alike).

Why does having a God or a book telling you who/how/when to love make that love any better? 

IMO, agape is just as conditional as any of the other types of love discussed in 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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Isn't this like

Quote:
Isn't this like saying if "I'm wrong then nothing makes sense"?It seems like a rather obvious conclusion whether theist or atheist.

 

No, it isn't.

 

If it were suddenly so that one could command a mountain to move from place to place, and it obeyed those commands, or if it were suddenly true that people could be brought back from the dead at a whim, or that materials could be fabricated instantly from thin air, our current, assumed universe would no longer exist. We would need to re-evaluate and redefine all of it's rules and functions, and all of the values attached to those. How does gravity matter or have any kind of factor at all when I can move an infinite amount of mass any distance through spoken command? How does biology, or life at all, have any meaning or measure when it can spontaneously come from nothing but my will? How do the laws of thermodynamics come into play when energy can be created in infinite supply from absolutely nothing?

 

Since God (and other supernatural elements) demand these conditions, and the laws of our assumed universe cannot create them, they are mutually exclusive. Either God is real, and our assumed universe is false, or our assumed universe is real, and God is false. Whatever the case, it is absolutely certain that God and our assumed universe cannot co-exist.

 

 

If you still don't take my meaning, and you don't mind a rather simple analogy, let's look at chess for a moment (treating chess as an assumed universe, if you will):

 

There are clearly defined rules and measurements in chess. Each player makes one move in a turn, then passes the turn to their opponent. Each piece has strict rules on how it can move about the board and how it can capture other pieces.

 

The game of chess cannot ever accept a player moving taking multiple turns in a row, making illegal moves with their pieces or making any kind of arbitrary changes to the game (however entertaining). There is no rule allowing the King to cause an 'earthquake' over the board, shaking pieces to their doom, or allowing the Queen to conjure 40K Space Marine miniatures to the battlefield. If these elements are introduced, you are no longer playing chess. That's not to say that it's impossible to introduce them - only that, in an actual game of chess, they cannot be introduced because the rules don't allow it.

 

In our assumed universe, the rules don't cover magical deities or psychic energies or the walking dead. While it is not completely impossible for these thing to exist, they cannot exist within our assumed universe - because, once they exist, our assumed universe ceases to be.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: For example,

seth wrote:
For example, love, as defined in the Bible has its own contectual meaning and it also gives reasons why to love and the ramifications of love.

If there existed a group of people who were unable to love each other until god stepped in and told them to, they would likely have killed each other off or faced too much competition from a more socially coheisve group. 

seth wrote:

Since love is not very scientific,

 

You've shown that you have a misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. Things can be examined with science. A thing need not be "scientific." You seem to be presenting an argument by incredulity.

 

seth wrote:

how does an atheist address it. What importance is love given in your life and what reason do you have to practice love. And and not talking about sex for those with twisted minds. This is just one example, but please let me know how atheism affects you life as a whole.

Love can help us remain socially cohesive and work together. It can also create great happiness for the lover and the lovee.

(Note: If you are of the stance that no one can love without god, then there is no answer that I can give that would satisfy you.)

-Triften 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: In

Kevin R Brown wrote:

In our assumed universe

This is your problem. You are assuming the universe is as you perceive it and allowing yourself to extrapolate that to absolute certainty. Before you can legitimately make that extrapolation, you need to show that all that can be known can only be known through empiricism and scientific method. You are also making unfounded assumptions that a supertnatural god requires infinite stores of power in order to interact with our universe. Moving a mountain from point a to point b requires a fintie amount of energy. Any "miracle" is a finite event. 

FWIW, I consider omni-properties and the supernatural weak concepts invoked for the purpose of projecting human attributes onto a entity that is clearly not human.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This is your

Quote:
This is your problem. You are assuming the universe is as you perceive it and allowing yourself to extrapolate that to absolute certainty.

 

I haven't done this at all, actually. I've been quite careful to be clear that my concept of the universe is only an assumption on my part. Just as everything is, aside from my own existence.

 

Quote:
Before you can legitimately make that extrapolation, you need to show that all that can be known can only be known through empiricism and scientific method.

 

It is incredibly logical to assume this. To assume otherwise, we would at least need some basis for the idea that another method exists for accurate measurement. It isn't impossible for said method to exist - but again, it's existence is incompatible with the assumed rules for our assumed universe. If such a method should emerge, we would once again have to re-evaluate the fundamental laws of the universe - and, as a result, it would cease to be the same universe at all.

 

Quote:
You are also making unfounded assumptions that a supertnatural god requires infinite stores of power in order to interact with our universe. Moving a mountain from point a to point b requires a fintie amount of energy. Any "miracle" is a finite event.

 

...Unfounded how? 'Omnipresence', 'omnipotence' and the very concept of a Godly creator requires infinite energy and violations of physical laws. Omnipotence demands the ability to do anything at anytime, while omnipresence demands the ability to be absolutely everywhere at every time. A finite amount of energy to use (however great) results in that energy eventually being expended (see thermodynamics) - which then eliminates the concept of omnipotence and omnipresence.

As a side note, I'm quite sure that most physics professors will agree that there is no mechanism a person can use to instantly move a mountain using only words and force of will.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: It is

Kevin R Brown wrote:

It is incredibly logical to assume this.

Only if you don't consider the assumptions 100% certain. As soon as you make the leap to absolute certainty, you change the burden of proof. If you want certainty, you would need a theory that rules out all possibilities. Even in mathematics, our most precise language, an absolute assertion must have a complete proof. I can state anything I want mathematically, and then I can proceed to build a series of examples that demonstrate the plausiblity of the statement. But I most provide a complete, valid chain of reasoning that ends in the stated assertion before I can consider it a mathematical certainty. The underlying physics of existence has no such absolute proof.

 

 

Quote:

...Unfounded how? 'Omnipresence', 'omnipotence' and the very concept of a Godly creator requires infinite energy and violations of physical laws.

If you read the last part of my previous post you should have gathered that I don't consider omnipotence and such as valid concepts. And the "creation" of this universe (I am not considering multiple universe cosmologies) by virtue of the laws of physics you are standing on does not require infinite energy. Conservation of energy tells us that the energy in this universe is NOT infinite. Whatever energy existed at the big bang has not increased or decreased. So a supernatural being whould only require enough energy as is currently in the universe, plus a little overhead for the waving of hands and speaking the creation command.

 

Quote:

As a side note, I'm quite sure that most physics professors will agree that there is no mechanism a person can use to instantly move a mountain using only words and force of will.

Again, you apply an absolute. There is no known mechanism. And it is very unlikely that such a method exits. But such a super entity isn't confined to human speech and will anyway. To think otherwise is an unjustified anthropomoric projection of human attributes. Granted, many people have no trouble assigining human attributes to god, but I am not one of them.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Christianity is a prepackaged system - I like that. My question is - does it package the beliefs or the believer? The believers I've run into act more like cookie-cutter Christ-bots than people.

I have to disagree with your statement that feelings of love are not scientific. It is the result of chemicals released in the brain triggered by the stimluli associated with one you deeply care for (can't get much more scientific than that).

Love is very important to humans (theist and atheist alike).

Why does having a God or a book telling you who/how/when to love make that love any better?

IMO, agape is just as conditional as any of the other types of love discussed in the Bible.

 

It only would "cage" the believer who wants to be.  Christianity encourages people to challenge its beliefs.

 If love is just chemicals released in the brain, than why do we have the choice of whom we love.  For instance, if I wanted to, I could love or not love you.  I don't know anything about you, but that is irrelevant, I can choose to love you anyway.  Maybe a chemical reaction may occur to follow my choice, but to say that chemicals are making me make that choice is untrue.  That is the facinating thing about us.  We choose what we do, think, and in some respects feel.  That is why you have people making rational and irrational choices.  That is what separates humans from everything else.

An aside, I just thought of something funny.  Atheists are very concerned with being rational, hence the name of this site.  If an atheists acts irrational, do they feel bad about it?  Kind of like when a Christian sins, or like when someone who has moral, goes against what their morals are? 

 My other question is more around, what reason do you have to love if there is no believe system to support it.  Do you love just because you have chemicals in your brain?

Tell me, how is unconditional love (agape), conditional?

Ok, thanks for indulging me, I'm having fun with this, I hope you find it interesting as well. 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
OccamsChainsaw

OccamsChainsaw wrote:

The 'bag' I referred to is, of course, the sun in a thin disguise. I thought the 'energy' clue would be enough of a hint.

I don't think your analogy is holding up. The sun cannot be a "bag"

1. If the contents for life were held in the "bag" (sun), life would have been created on (in) the sun and therefore not exist here on earth

2. The sun is extremely hot last time I checked and therefore would not be the ideal location for life to "put itself together". This is not even in the realm of possibility.

Therefore I think that we have differing opinions of what the "bag" might be, so please let me know what you mean. I actually didn't have a bag in my original analogy with the watch and parts, but someone (maybe you) said a bag was necessary so I went along with it. My idea of the bag is the thing that collects and holds together the raw elements necessary to form life. It's something that I don't think is possible, but I'm open minded and willing to listen.

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org might be a good website to start some research. They have some long thorough essays and any sections that seem too brief have sources that you can look into, if you like.

-Triften 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Only if you don't

Quote:
Only if you don't consider the assumptions 100% certain. As soon as you make the leap to absolute certainty, you change the burden of proof. If you want certainty, you would need a theory that rules out all possibilities.

 

An assumption cannot be 100% certain, of course. Otherwise it isn't an assumption. This universe is an assumed one (that is, it's reality - and that of everything within it - is not 100% certain). It is, again, governed by measurable laws (which are also assumed, because of the assumed nature of the universe - but, because they are used to distinguish the nature / concept of the assumed universe, they must be 100% accurate / true in order for the assumed universe to exist as it is assumed. For example, a triangle is a geometric shape that has 3 seperate angles. Now, it could be that the entire concept of geometry is flawed and that triangles /angles do not exist - however, our assumed concept of a triangle is governed by the rule of having three seperate angles. If angles are added or removed, or become something else entirely, we lose the very concept of the triangle).

 

In that sense, there is 100% certainty that magical deities do not exist within our assumed universe (this, of course, does not actually matter to you - why, again, are we debating in that case?) because the laws of the assumed universe do not make any inclusions for magical powers.

 

That isn't to say that the assumption is right - it is, afterall, only an assumption. However, if the assumption is incorrect, than we do not actually live in our assumed universe - we live in one with entirely different rules, which make inclusions for magical beings / powers.

 

7 or 8 centuries ago, let's say you and I were debating the world's geometry. I argue that our assumed world is flat, you argue that it is spherical. According to the assumptions at the time, I'd be correct in the matter - the assumed world was flat. Exploration and discovery would prove my assumptions to be false, however - and then the assumed world and it's associated rules change. Now it's spherical, and I can't sail a ship right off of it, and India isn't where we thought it was... deary, deary me.

 

The same is true of our assumed universe. Right now, we have assumptions about the way it works. The assumed universe can only work within that framework of rules. If those rules change, so does the concept of the universe.

 

Quote:
If you read the last part of my previous post you should have gathered that I don't consider omnipotence and such as valid concepts. And the "creation" of this universe (I am not considering multiple universe cosmologies) by virtue of the laws of physics you are standing on does not require infinite energy. Conservation of energy tells us that the energy in this universe is NOT infinite. Whatever energy existed at the big bang has not increased or decreased. So a supernatural being whould only require enough energy as is currently in the universe, plus a little overhead for the waving of hands and speaking the creation command.

 

...So, then, how is he / she / it 'supernatural' at all? Essentially you've now taken the concept of God and tailored it to your liking. God isn't a deity anymore, it's just an extraterrestrial being with no magical power at all (hail Xenu?) - which is not the view typically subscribed to (I, for one, do not propose that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist, because the laws of the assumed universe suggest that it's plausible).

 

Quote:
Again, you apply an absolute. There is no known mechanism. And it is very unlikely that such a method exits.

 

....AND, if it does exist, it changes our assumed universe. But I've already explained this a few times over.

 

Quote:
But such a super entity isn't confined to human speech and will anyway. To think otherwise is an unjustified anthropomoric projection of human attributes. Granted, many people have no trouble assigining human attributes to god, but I am not one of them.

 

...You aren't?

 

Quote:
So a supernatural being whould only require enough energy as is currently in the universe, plus a little overhead for the waving of hands and speaking the creation command.

 

Alright, that was a bit mean. I'd guess that you mean you typically don't anthropomorphize God outside of internet debates.

 

...Though I don't see why we're having one? My proposal only really applies to magical deities, which would act in violation of our assumed universes laws. Your concept of God is apparently not magical, which means it fits within said laws just fine.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: It only would

seth wrote:
It only would "cage" the believer who wants to be. Christianity encourages people to challenge its beliefs.

Does it now? Ahem:

"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"

-2 Corinthians 10:5 (New American Standard Bible)

Yeah... you're freethinkers...

 


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I don't think

seth wrote:
I don't think your analogy is holding up. The sun cannot be a "bag"

 

1. If the contents for life were held in the "bag" (sun), life would have been created on (in) the sun and therefore not exist here on earth

2. The sun is extremely hot last time I checked and therefore would not be the ideal location for life to "put itself together". This is not even in the realm of possibility.

Therefore I think that we have differing opinions of what the "bag" might be, so please let me know what you mean. I actually didn't have a bag in my original analogy with the watch and parts, but someone (maybe you) said a bag was necessary so I went along with it. My idea of the bag is the thing that collects and holds together the raw elements necessary to form life. It's something that I don't think is possible, but I'm open minded and willing to listen.

 

 

The bag isn't the sun so to speak, it's the shaking of the bag thats being compared to the suns release of energy.

The underlying problem with the whole analogy is the comparison of biological and non biological matter. There simply is no comparison to be made.

I'm not being rude, but your arguments are hundreds of years old and have been proven to be false long ago. Sometimes I get bored with every new theist who comes in to argue using the same tired old arguments like the watch maker, pascals wager or Hoyles fallacy. It is a strong sign that you haven't actually done as much skeptical research against your religion.

Thats cute.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: An

Kevin R Brown wrote:

An assumption cannot be 100% certain, of course. Otherwise it isn't an assumption. This universe is an assumed one (that is, it's reality - and that of everything within it - is not 100% certain).

I think where we are butting heads is that our assumed universes are different. Your universe  is based on assumptions x,y, and z. Mine is based on w,x,y. So we overlap on a great deal but still have some fundamental differences.


Quote:

...So, then, how is he / she / it 'supernatural' at all? Essentially you've now taken the concept of God and tailored it to your liking.

This is wrong. A supernatural deity is actually a much easier construct rather than one the is consistent with what we observe. If I were tailoring my "god" to suit my whims, supernatural is the way to go.

Quote:

God isn't a deity anymore, it's just an extraterrestrial being with no magical power at all (hail Xenu?) - which is not the view typically subscribed to (I, for one, do not propose that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist, because the laws of the assumed universe suggest that it's plausible).

You are suggesting that the only entity that can be classified as a deity must have the properties of the Abrahamic god?

 

Quote:

...You aren't?

No, I am not. Any entity of sufficient scope to qualify as a deity is not human.

Quote:

Alright, that was a bit mean. I'd guess that you mean you typically don't anthropomorphize God outside of internet debates.

I'm not sure what was mean, but whatever. And I try my best not to athropomorphize reality in general, whether in an internet setting or not.

Quote:

...Though I don't see why we're having one? My proposal only really applies to magical deities, which would act in violation of our assumed universes laws. Your concept of God is apparently not magical, which means it fits within said laws just fine.

Can't say why you are having this discussion, but you seem articulate enough that I believe I am likely to gain something from it. And as for "magical" beings, my personal feelings are words like "magical' and "supernatural" are just lazy catch alls for "stuff we don't understand".


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: seth wrote: It

KSMB wrote:

seth wrote:
It only would "cage" the believer who wants to be. Christianity encourages people to challenge its beliefs.

Does it now? Ahem:

"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"

-2 Corinthians 10:5 (New American Standard Bible)

Yeah... you're freethinkers...

 

Paul was speaking to his fellow Christians.  Encouraging them not to believe everything they hear but instead to fight against that which comes against God.  I'm sure you've expereinced this too.

 I have the same thoughts about atheists. Nothing can exist in your world unless it can be understood scientifically.  I  would say that you are trapped in the cage of science, all the while there exist things that are beyond the scope a science.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: [...] I have

seth wrote:
[...] I have the same thoughts about atheists. Nothing can exist in your world unless it can be understood scientifically.  I  would say that you are trapped in the cage of science, all the while there exist things that are beyond the scope a science.

Atheism isn't dependent on science. A person can be an atheist for wholly unjustifiable and irrational reasons; the label only refers to their lack of belief.

Science tends to study things that demonstrably exist. It's prejudicial that way.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Atheism

magilum wrote:

Atheism isn't dependent on science. A person can be an atheist for wholly unjustifiable and irrational reasons; the label only refers to their lack of belief.

Science tends to study things that demonstrably exist. It's prejudicial that way.

Of course it's not, if you don't care to try to prove it, but once you try to prove it, on what do you rely? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: magilum

seth wrote:
magilum wrote:

Atheism isn't dependent on science. A person can be an atheist for wholly unjustifiable and irrational reasons; the label only refers to their lack of belief.

Science tends to study things that demonstrably exist. It's prejudicial that way.

Of course it's not, if you don't care to try to prove it, but once you try to prove it, on what do you rely? 

Sigh.

I can't believe it's 2008, and still possible to have a conversation like this. I really can't. I feel like I'm talking to a re-enactor, whimsically maintaining some cheeky period speak.

That being said, Seth, you've shifted the burden of proof. You can either retract your challenge, or be responsible for proving the inviability of every competing mythology. With a uniform application of your view, every single conceivable notion must be assumed true until specifically proven otherwise -- regardless of evidentiary status.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: If love is

seth wrote:

If love is just chemicals released in the brain, than why do we have the choice of whom we love. For instance, if I wanted to, I could love or not love you. I don't know anything about you, but that is irrelevant, I can choose to love you anyway. Maybe a chemical reaction may occur to follow my choice, but to say that chemicals are making me make that choice is untrue. That is the facinating thing about us. We choose what we do, think, and in some respects feel. That is why you have people making rational and irrational choices. That is what separates humans from everything else.

Choices are chemical reactions too.

Are you trying to suggest that your choices are based on something other then the current event + memory + current mental state? I would love to see your supporting evidence for this.

seth wrote:

An aside, I just thought of something funny. Atheists are very concerned with being rational, hence the name of this site. If an atheists acts irrational, do they feel bad about it? Kind of like when a Christian sins, or like when someone who has moral, goes against what their morals are?

I don't feel bad for being irrational, but I do correct the behavior.

seth wrote:

My other question is more around, what reason do you have to love if there is no believe system to support it. Do you love just because you have chemicals in your brain?

Tell me, how is unconditional love (agape), conditional?

Reason for love is the same reason to play a video game, because you want to. There is no belief system to support playing videogames. I love playing videogames.

I don't believe in unconditional love. I am glad that I like my most of my family, if I didn't like them I would drop them off out of my life.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: I don't

Magus wrote:

I don't believe in unconditional love. I am glad that I like my most of my family, if I didn't like them I would drop them off out of my life.

I'm glad that I'm not your friend, wife, family member or of any consequence to you.  Who wants to be around someone if they will just "drop" you if they don't like you anymore.  Science isn't life, science is one tool used to explain life.  There is a world beyond science, I hope you discover it one day.  BTW, if you don't like them it's only a chemical reaction making you not like them.  So if you make a choice, another chemical reaction, to like them again, you can trick you mind into liking them again and not have to drop them after all.  Is that unconditional love?  I don't know, how would you explain it?  I would explain unconditional love as loving someone, no matter what.  And it's even easier to do the way you explain it.  All you have to do is make you mind have the right chemical reactions, easy.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Man I'm tired of atheists

Man I'm tired of atheists saying that they don't have a stance.  They have nothing to prove.  Well if you don't have a stance, take one.  If you don't have a philosophy, get one.  Atheism is indeed a choice, and it sounds like you have a reason for making that choice, so don't tell me you don't.  Everyone has a burden of proof.  If you believe anything at all, then you have to have a reason for believing it be it rational or not. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: So you are

seth wrote:

So you are saying that although the theories to back atheism lack evidence to make them facts, that theism, including it's claims or "theories" is irrational? Neither have 100% certainty, both have theories and evidence to back them up, but one is rational and the other not? Sounds like a double standard to me...

No, theism has no theories or evidence to back it up. If you disagree, please present your evidence for the existence of God.

seth wrote:

Explain to me, how did Isaiah chapter 53 predict Christs death in detail over 700 years before it happened?

The same way that Gandalf predicts that Gollum has some role to play in the fate of the Ring more than a year before Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and falls into the Cracks of Doom. It's called foreshadowing. 

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: An

wavefreak wrote:

An additional problem is there is broad disagreemnt on what constitutes valid evidence. Quoting a verse in the bible and saying Jesus fulfilled a prophecy is not considered empirical evidence, even if it is sufficient evidence for many believers. So the standard of evidence for atheists is different that for theists.

Actually, theists are quite committed to the very same standards of evidence as atheists in every aspect of their lives except that one concerning God. I haven't noticed many theists buying cars on faith, for instance. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I just gave

seth wrote:

I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist. Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself. It was written 700 years before Christ's death. 

And edited for consistency by the framers of the KJV, a fact well documented by Biblical historians.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Magus

seth wrote:
Magus wrote:

I don't believe in unconditional love. I am glad that I like my most of my family, if I didn't like them I would drop them off out of my life.

I'm glad that I'm not your friend, wife, family member or of any consequence to you. Who wants to be around someone if they will just "drop" you if they don't like you anymore.

What I get from what you read is, that if your loved ones did horrible things to you or your friends, you would still stick around them? Relationships with people should be based on the fact that we enjoy being around them. If that person does things that make them no longer enjoyable to be around why should I be around them? What reason do you have for sticking around with people you don't enjoy being around.

seth wrote:

Science isn't life, science is one tool used to explain life. There is a world beyond science, I hope you discover it one day. BTW, if you don't like them it's only a chemical reaction making you not like them. So if you make a choice, another chemical reaction, to like them again, you can trick you mind into liking them again and not have to drop them after all.

Choice is based on Current situation + memories + current mental state (and physical state). What other factor can you concieve of that can make choices?

seth wrote:

Is that unconditional love? I don't know, how would you explain it? I would explain unconditional love as loving someone, no matter what. And it's even easier to do the way you explain it. All you have to do is make you mind have the right chemical reactions, easy.

You seem to think mind and the "I" are seperate entities. I am the chemical reactions of my mind.

Do you think you could unconditionally love someone who beat you ever day? Give me an example of unconditional love.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Man I'm tired

seth wrote:
Man I'm tired of atheists saying that they don't have a stance.  They have nothing to prove.  Well if you don't have a stance, take one.  If you don't have a philosophy, get one.  Atheism is indeed a choice, and it sounds like you have a reason for making that choice, so don't tell me you don't.

Can we get a waaahmbulance over here? It seems like you're pleading for the basis for a tu quoque to emerge.

seth wrote:
Everyone has a burden of proof.  If you believe anything at all, then you have to have a reason for believing it be it rational or not.

A reason? Mental illness causes people to believe in irrational things, but I'm not sure that's a comparison you'd enjoy. Everyone has the burden of proof? You gotta love that Christian inversion of concepts. I've already addressed the problems with your argument, and I won't repeat myself.