Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: I have to wonder why we even have these threads anymore. [gripe]Seriously... there's at least 250 repeat threads of this. What the hell does someone think they are accomplishing by making *another* one? I can totally get the second one... even a third one. Hell, I could be convinced to understand 15-30 over the course of the forum's existence. But this is ridiculous. The OP has added nothing new. There is nothing new to add. We've been over this more than 250 times. Why do it again?[/gripe]
Because this place has become just like a school. Ignorant theists come, assert shit, we come in, try to teach'em some sense. They throw tantrums, repeat themselves and in desperation jump to logical fallacies as if it will help some how.
Been doing more teaching than debating. Theists tell us what we believe, try to redefine atheism and just can't shut up about their delusional shit.
This is why we don't take these kind of threads seriously, it's the same old tired shit over and over again. Just repeating ourselves.
That is why I take lengthy breaks.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
July 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm (This post was last modified: July 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm by Faith No More.)
(July 12, 2011 at 10:43 am)Alastor Wrote:
That is what philosophy is all about. It is about making deductions or inductions from a basic premise, assumed to be true, that, themselves, are also necessarily true. Therefore I do not need to know the details of creation, only that out of nothingness came specificness, you cannot deny this truth. To ask "what are the chances the laws of physics could be different" is the same as asking if nothingness has a bias or tendency toward something and how much. This is illogical, since, otherwise, it couldn't be nothingness. Therefore, in order for a non-infinite probability to exist, there would have to have never been nothingness in the first place. Once again, I "choose" to believe the universe didn't just start with constraints and limits with amazing detail. This, to me, makes no sense. Its not just that the universe stumbled on upon a few rules but became something so complex, so specific and , coincidentally, stable that it is difficult for the human mind to even conceive creating something like it. In order for God, or an intelligent creator, not to exist, then you have to choose to believe that these laws just sort of happened from; either from complete nothingness or nothingness with an incredibly specific bias. It certainly is possible, but I don't think so.
How about the idea that the physical laws were always in place, and the universe evolved to structure itself within these laws giving the illusion that this specificness you refer to is necessary for its existence? Who's to say the universe couldn't have evolved to fit itself within any set of physical laws?
Alastor Wrote:I don't get this statement, a choice is always a choice evidence or no evidence. Only conclusion I came to is that the universe either started off with a bias toward something or it did not. I still had choose to believe in God or not based on that.
Well then, did you choose to believe in gravity? Based on the evidence presented I see only one logical conclusion leaving my beliefs to be anything but choice.
Alastor Wrote:To answer this question, yes, I still have to choose to believe the sky blue. The sight of blueness does not, in itself, force me believe the sky blue. I have to assume my vision is correct among many other things. Need I set up the premise that God or an evil deity may be deceiving my senses?
The way you interpret the evidence is the choice. In other words, you choose to believe or not that your senses are working correctly. The result of that, the belief the sky is blue, is not the choice.
Alastor Wrote:
If this is true, then this is fine except that it would be more politically correct to say "no beliefs about something" than "in something". To say about something, implies you will not make assumptions about something you do not understand. In something, implies, or at least has the connotation that you deny it.
Example:
" I have no beliefs about America"- implies I know nothing about America
" I don't believe in America"- implies I disagree with it's beliefs or I don't believe it exist. And to not believe it exist requires some assumptions about its nature.
This is redundant because if I have no belief about something then I do not believe in it either.
Alastor Wrote:That is not evidence at all. If we are talking about a God from the Big 3 monotheistic religions, then there could be many reasons for the appearance of what we might call contradictory. These religions are exactly based logic or philosophical deduction.
God's contradictory nature is evidence that he is man made. Regardless of that, please give me some examples of why you think a god might appear contradictory.
Alastor Wrote:If my premise was not correct, then why get upset. Especially if you'd agree someones belief are ignorant when they are based on the premise I suggested.
I never got upset personally, but being incorrect in your premise does not excuse your conclusions. If you had said all black people are lazy therefore you hate them, I would not give you a pass on your hate because your assertion that all blacks are lazy is incorrect.
Alastor Wrote:Which part was not thorough because all of it was "right of the money", so to speak, after re-reading it multiple times. If the premise was wrong it was only because the dictionary I read was wrong about the definition of atheist.
You merely 'glossed over' all of your assertions making it far from thorough.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(July 12, 2011 at 4:36 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Is there, according to you, more than one..?
Hehe
(July 12, 2011 at 4:37 am)thebigfudge Wrote: Well if personal experience counted, then everyone's personal experience must count ? . Ie Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism, pyschic's, Nessie believers, bhuddists. ( this list could go on and on, but I am sure you get my point)This would bring up numerous contradictions. so NO personal experience does not count.
Quote:All of those experiences do count. If we're talking Christianity then only experiences relevant to Christiany count. God is wider than Christianity though, so we can't limit him to acting solely within that tradition. The bible also states that all people will be drawn to God.
Personal experience tho', is valid to the person.
[quote='thebigfudge' pid='153557' dateline='1310459838']
What observations are you talking about, can you elaborate ?
I was talking about recorded/ shared observations.
[quote='Rhythm' pid='153589' dateline='1310478265']
I don't have all the answers Frodo, and neither do you. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
You're talking a different subject to mine. I certainly don't have all the answers in either area, no.
The bible's cosmology is inline with cosmology of the time... ie it was functional rather than material. Yes, God didn't educate the Israelites outside of their understanding at the time. His message is about how his truth applies to our situation. His point is not to put his identity beyond belief, because above all he values love.
Observation: All history is evidence of God, given God. Sure. I don't claim exclusivity, just coherence. You can accept that or not, it's up to you. My belief puts me in one camp, sure. To come to that belief involved no bias. Weighing up the information I concluded with no doubt my agreement with the information presented.
God is self evident > given God. God cannot be disproven. Nothing is contradictory there.
lol, Frodo, gonna have to start an "agree to disagree" policy with you my friend. Will prevent epic amounts of flaming on my part.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(July 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Observation: All history is evidence of God
Quote:There can be no evidence of god
That's it. I give up. I'm gonna sit down with a glass of wine before I hurt myself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
What do you know about physics etc to come to this conclusion OP?
Being an atheist is simple. Logic, reasoning and not filling any unknown gaps in with GOD, because we do not yet know the correct answer.'we know that science will get the answers one day.
Just because you think there must be a god because it's just too random is pretty lame. Random happens, look at our evolution.
(July 12, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Frodo and I were just discussing that actually. It can at least be a learning experience for the OP. Whatever they take from it only they will know, but one can hope that it's something worthwhile.
The OP could learn well enough from the other half trillion threads. I want to learn about a topic I use search feature first. It's not exactly difficult.
