Question for atheists (from another thread) [Archive] - Debate Policy

Abbey Marie

01-26-2010, 08:36 PM

glockmail

01-26-2010, 08:37 PM

Typical liberal logic.

Abbey Marie

01-26-2010, 08:37 PM

From your perspective, yes.

Thanks for replying, Noir. I appreciate your honesty.

DragonStryk72

01-26-2010, 08:39 PM

PostmodernProphet

01-26-2010, 08:39 PM

Also if it so happens that your type of god is the only god then that means that countless Billions will be sent to hell through no fault of their own

no.....they will be where they chose to go....it isn't a question of "fault", it's a question of choice....

PostmodernProphet

01-26-2010, 08:41 PM

Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?
actually, no...

To flip the point around, when i die, you will hope i go to hell.

no, we hope you come to your senses before you die.....

Noir

01-26-2010, 08:58 PM

Why would I hope you go to hell?!

Because i do not believe in your god, or any god for that matter. And if your God does exist then he will send me to hell, and ofcourse you must hope that your god does exist.

So in the same way that you hope that your loved ones who have passed away are in heaven because they believed, you are indirectly hoping that those who do not believe are going to/are in hell.

Noir

01-26-2010, 08:59 PM

And you blindly follow. LOL

I blindly follow? I dare say you are the one who blindly follows Sir, you only hold the religion you hold because of where and when you where born.

Noir

01-26-2010, 09:01 PM

Wow, that's a lot of assumption from you, and you're still not seeing. the first commandment actually does not command reverence to god, it reads "I am the Lord thy God, worship no other gods before me", meaning that if you follow Him, then that's it, he comes first. The idea that your parents would go to hell simply for not having faith in god is one born of ignorance, and of prejudice. I really do hope you have the wisdom to get past those both.

...so you are saying that people get to heaven even when they don't believe in god?

glockmail

01-26-2010, 09:02 PM

I blindly follow? I dare say you are the one who blindly follows Sir, you only hold the religion you hold because of where and when you where born. Not at all. Although my parents raised me Catholic, during a few of my teen years I was a dumb fuck as well, and didn't reason my way out of it so until years later. You, however, were raised a dumb fuck and continue to be one.

Noir

01-26-2010, 09:03 PM

no.....they will be where they chose to go....it isn't a question of "fault", it's a question of choice....

So tell me, how does a Viking who gave praise to Thor and so forth a thousand years ago, and who never heard of a single snip of Christianity chose were he goes?

glockmail

01-26-2010, 09:05 PM

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6

Noir

01-26-2010, 09:07 PM

actually, no...

How sad.

no, we hope you come to your senses before you die.....

Lol, thats a different point, if i where to die an atheist you would hope i go to hell.

SassyLady

01-26-2010, 09:07 PM

Abbey Marie

01-26-2010, 09:09 PM

Because i do not believe in your god, or any god for that matter. And if your God does exist then he will send me to hell, and ofcourse you must hope that your god does exist.

So in the same way that you hope that your loved ones who have passed away are in heaven because they believed, you are indirectly hoping that those who do not believe are going to/are in hell.

No, no, no, you have it backwards. The very reason those Evangelists that people are so annoyed by try to convert you, is so that you will spend eternity with God. I am always perplexed by how much people are hated for just trying to give others what they believe is the biggest reward possible. Aside from the few shysters out there, most do it because Jesus asked it. And for souls.

So no, I don't wish hell upon you. I can be glad and convinced that God exists, without wishing punishment on you. That is between you and God.

Anyway, aside from not having to worry about your grandparents, which is nice, what do you personally gain from not believing? What makes your life better for living/dying in a godless universe?

glockmail

01-26-2010, 09:14 PM

Your grandparents aren't even aware of each other in hell never mind you still on earth. Fahgetaboutem.

Noir

01-26-2010, 09:36 PM

Noir - my grandbaby (3 months old) doesn't know about the bible, religion or gods ........... I don't think he would be condemned to hell, do you? Personally, I don't believe in heaven or hell.

Well i don't believe they'd go to hell either, cus it doesn't exist IMO, however, there are no doubt religious people who would say that unless they were chirstaned at birth ect then they would. See thats a massive problem i have with religion, no matter what God does it is just, for anything against his will is Sin, thus if he wants to send babies to hell, and forgive deathbed conversions of murderers, then that is 'just' because it is his will.

Ever heard of quantum physics .... everything that exists is made up of nothing but energy?

I have, and it fascinates me,

My "god" is the universe ....... and a belief that every single particle of energy is just a cell in the total makeup of God/Universe .......as our physical bodies die the energy of our soul regroups and decides what our next lesson will be and then creates the situation from our combined energy and thoughts.

Indeedy, this is a very common form of 'God' and a view that has been shared by many, such as einstein, the problem is that people can manipulate what you say by removing context, for example Einstien is often quoted as saying "God does not play dice" which he did, but he was using the word god to talk about nature, not about any personal god.

Noir

01-26-2010, 09:37 PM

Your grandparents aren't even aware of each other in hell never mind you still on earth. Fahgetaboutem.

Cool.

Noir

01-26-2010, 10:15 PM

No, no, no, you have it backwards. The very reason those Evangelists that people are so annoyed by try to convert you, is so that you will spend eternity with God. I am always perplexed by how much people are hated for just trying to give others what they believe is the biggest reward possible. Aside from the few shysters out there, most do it because Jesus asked it. And for souls.

So no, I don't wish hell upon you. I can be glad and convinced that God exists, without wishing punishment on you. That is between you and God.

Anyway, aside from not having to worry about your grandparents, which is nice, what do you personally gain from not believing? What makes your life better for living/dying in a godless universe?

I have no doubt that you and many others do what you do sincerely and out of caring, and i know you do not wish ill on me, or anyone else, however, it is your belief that one must follow God through Christ and have your sins forgiven ect ect, otherwise you go to hell. As such in hoping that your Gods exist, and that you are following the right one, you are hoping that others are worshiping false gods, and by the scripture that you have faith in that means they are damned to hell

chesswarsnow

01-26-2010, 10:26 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. Well we are all in this world together mates.
2. You like everyone else has to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky punk?":laugh2:
3. No really just joking, we care what happens to you Noir, or whatever your name is.
4. But the thing is, is God makes the rules, we just listen and follow is all we're saying.
5. Sure we are mostly screw ups, we make mistakes too, just like you do.
6. We ain't perfect, but we are forgiven by his grace.
7. And theres still room for another, its you who desides.
8. We're pulling for you,.....:dance:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

82Marine89

01-27-2010, 01:04 AM

Pericles

01-27-2010, 01:50 AM

Noir said he hoped that I was wrong about God. So, I wanted to ask the question of any atheists on the board.

Why do you hope we believers are wrong? What do you gain by living (and especially, by dying) in a Godless universe?

Because if God exists, we are not free to recognize, on our own accord, what is meaningful for us. We are not free to recognize beauty where we find it. With God, whatever is beautiful, whatever really matters, is whatever God says. And if that were so, if that's all we're here for, is to be God's cheering section - then what the hell are our individual lives for? If God exists, everything is meaningless - it's all a parlor game God plays in his head.

True freedom (and true responsibility) are only possible in a Godless universe. Life is valuable, only because it is finite. I can think of no more perfect hell, than to condemn a man to unending life. The people who yearn for it, don't understand the implications. An eternity of insomnia - the ultimate self-aggrandizement of your ego, and with no escape possible! Life is beautiful, and death is hard. And that is as good as it gets. The grand irony of the hereafter, is that the exact same notice is posted above the gates to heaven and hell alike: "Hope Dies Here."

SassyLady

01-27-2010, 02:53 AM

True freedom (and true responsibility) are only possible in a Godless universe.

Not true.

If you can let go of what you currently believe about God, perhaps you could realize that YOU are a piece of God and through you the creator of the universe can experience all that is.

I do not experience God through the belief system of any religion, therefore, I put no limitations on what I believe God to be, therefore I have the ultimate freedom.

glockmail

01-27-2010, 07:38 AM

Cool.Hot, actually.

9HdugdTIS74

Noir

01-27-2010, 07:46 AM

Hot, actually.

9HdugdTIS74

So someone had a bad dream?

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 09:05 AM

So tell me, how does a Viking who gave praise to Thor and so forth a thousand years ago, and who never heard of a single snip of Christianity chose were he goes?

the Bible indicates that all will have opportunity to choose.....I have no reason to doubt that God will find a way to ask them.....

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 09:08 AM

How sad.

why....do you think a beautiful sunset is somehow less beautiful if I think that God planned it?

Lol, thats a different point, if i where to die an atheist you would hope i go to hell.
no.....I would hope you wouldn't die an atheist, if you die an atheist I KNOW you're going to hell.....but at least I will be consoled in knowing you are where you want to be....

glockmail

01-27-2010, 09:11 AM

So someone had a bad dream? Read the book; its a short one, and cheap. He's got some compelling evidence that suggests it wasn't merely a dream. Unless of course you're too closed-minded. :laugh2:

http://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-Bill-Wiese/product-reviews/1591858828

Noir

01-27-2010, 09:19 AM

the Bible indicates that all will have opportunity to choose.....I have no reason to doubt that God will find a way to ask them.....

What a wonderful cop-out. I guess that's the joy of religion, you can change the rules at will.

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 11:09 AM

What a wonderful cop-out. I guess that's the joy of religion, you can change the rules at will.

I haven't changed any rules....as I said, the Bible indicates we all have opportunity to choose......it is an illogical assumption that a deity capable of creating the universe, capable of creating a heaven and a hell, capable of creating a being capable of choice....would then be incapable of communicating with that being and soliciting a simple answer......

be that as it may, it makes no difference to you or to me.....both of us have heard about Christ......thus, if you end up in hell, it is nothing more than where you have chosen to be.....

crin63

01-27-2010, 11:12 AM

Personally, I hope you are wrong because if you are right then my Grandparents are currently burning in hell because they did not worship a god. I'm sure you can imagin why I'd not be so keen on that.

Also if it so happens that your type of god is the only god then that means that countless Billions will be sent to hell through no fault of their own, but merely because of the country they were born in, or the age in which they lived.

However, you will hope that your God does exist, so you can spend forever in pleasure and happiness.

Also, I do hate this whole notion of 'your life is pointless without god' are you thus saying you could not live a happy life without god? Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god? Can you not love those around you without god? To make a statement as silly as 'your life is pointless without a god' is to deminish the life that we have,

To flip the point around, when i die, you will hope i go to hell.

I have no doubt that most of my family are currently in hell including my grandparents and that is hard to take, however I believe it is a reality. I also have little doubt that my children will also end up in hell as they continue to reject Christ in favor of sins. The fear of people ending up in hell (especially the ones we love) is part of the reason that we try to tell folks about their need of Jesus, the other part is that is our duty! Preaching the gospel is a command. I'm probably in the minority here but Jesus commanded that Christians preach the gospel, it wasn't a request.

God declares that anyone can know He exists just by looking at the heavens and the earth around them. Missionaries have gone to places where there was no gospel ever preached and had people tell them that they had been waiting for them to come because they looked around and knew there was a God. They were waiting for someone to come and tell them more. You want fair play, God is just, He is not fair. Fair is a politically correct creation of men.

I found great beauty in things prior to being a Christian, however I find even greater beauty in even more things now than I ever did before. Seeing things as God's handiwork makes them even more fascinating and beautiful to me.

If Christians wanted you to go to hell then you would never have heard the name Jesus. It would have been hidden from you like some secret society. The fact that you have heard of Jesus is sufficient proof to the contrary.

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 11:12 AM

Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?

would you feel the Mona Lisa was a better painting if you determined there was no artist?.......or, would it no longer be "art"......

Noir

01-27-2010, 11:49 AM

Read the book; its a short one, and cheap. He's got some compelling evidence that suggests it wasn't merely a dream. Unless of course you're too closed-minded. :laugh2:

http://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-Bill-Wiese/product-reviews/1591858828

I've got quiet a book list building up lol, and given that i've already watched a video of this guy i think i'll give his book a miss.
On a similar note, have you read 'The God delusion' By Richard Dawkins? If not, and if you are a keen reader, i would recommend you do,

Noir

01-27-2010, 11:58 AM

why....do you think a beautiful sunset is somehow less beautiful if I think that God planned it?

No, a beautiful sunset is beautiful whether a God has made it or not in my view.

I said "how sad" because when i asked "Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?" You said "no" meaning that you only find it beautiful because you think that a god made it, and not because it is beautiful. Quite ironic that you would then go on to ask me about things being 'less beautiful'

no.....I would hope you wouldn't die an atheist, if you die an atheist I KNOW you're going to hell.....but at least I will be consoled in knowing you are where you want to be....

You do not 'know' i am going to hell. You believe i am going to hell. Big difference.

Noir

01-27-2010, 12:07 PM

I haven't changed any rules....as I said, the Bible indicates we all have opportunity to choose......it is an illogical assumption that a deity capable of creating the universe, capable of creating a heaven and a hell, capable of creating a being capable of choice....would then be incapable of communicating with that being and soliciting a simple answer......

be that as it may, it makes no difference to you or to me.....both of us have heard about Christ......thus, if you end up in hell, it is nothing more than where you have chosen to be.....

Well that would be logical and fair, but since when need gods be either?

And true, i have made a choice and should that send me to hell, fair enough,

Noir

01-27-2010, 12:23 PM

I have no doubt that most of my family are currently in hell including my grandparents and that is hard to take, however I believe it is a reality. I also have little doubt that my children will also end up in hell as they continue to reject Christ in favor of sins. The fear of people ending up in hell (especially the ones we love) is part of the reason that we try to tell folks about their need of Jesus, the other part is that is our duty! Preaching the gospel is a command. I'm probably in the minority here but Jesus commanded that Christians preach the gospel, it wasn't a request.

Well at least you're honest about it, in this sense i would see you as quiet a fundamentalist Christian if you do not mind such a label. Rather than allot of liberal Christians which seem to dominate most schools of thought.

God declares that anyone can know He exists just by looking at the heavens and the earth around them. Missionaries have gone to places where there was no gospel ever preached and had people tell them that they had been waiting for them to come because they looked around and knew there was a God. They were waiting for someone to come and tell them more. You want fair play, God is just, He is not fair. Fair is a politically correct creation of men.

Ofcourse God can be seen in everything, it all depends on your definition of god.

I found great beauty in things prior to being a Christian, however I find even greater beauty in even more things now than I ever did before. Seeing things as God's handiwork makes them even more fascinating and beautiful to me.

Fair play, though i do not understand that myself.

If Christians wanted you to go to hell then you would never have heard the name Jesus. It would have been hidden from you like some secret society. The fact that you have heard of Jesus is sufficient proof to the contrary.

As i said, i know they do not 'want' me to go to hell, however, in wanting to go to heaven, and in hoping that they are following the right god, they must then hope that when an atheist dies they go to hell, because if not then they have it all wrong.

Noir

01-27-2010, 12:27 PM

would you feel the Mona Lisa was a better painting if you determined there was no artist?.......or, would it no longer be "art"......

It would still look the same, and so would be just as beautiful, in the same way as if the Mona Lisa was painted by a mass-murderer, the creator (or not) of the piece has nothing to do with the piece itself, in my opinion.

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 02:47 PM

No, a beautiful sunset is beautiful whether a God has made it or not in my view.

I said "how sad" because when i asked "Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?" You said "no" meaning that you only find it beautiful because you think that a god made it, and not because it is beautiful. Quite ironic that you would then go on to ask me about things being 'less beautiful'

not ironic at all.....we both view a sunset and see beauty.....I see more than you, because I view the planning and gift behind it.....all you see is "shit happens"......

You do not 'know' i am going to hell. You believe i am going to hell. Big difference.
actually, from here it makes no difference at all......I can see where it makes a huge difference from your perspective......regardless, you have to acknowledge it's where you choose to be....

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 02:52 PM

It would still look the same, and so would be just as beautiful, in the same way as if the Mona Lisa was painted by a mass-murderer, the creator (or not) of the piece has nothing to do with the piece itself, in my opinion.

yet you thought it sad that I believed nature had a creator?......how oddly self contradictory.......

personally I think it would detract from the Mona Lisa if I believed the paint had just happened to fall from the sky in that pattern.....

glockmail

01-27-2010, 03:11 PM

I've got quiet a book list building up lol, and given that i've already watched a video of this guy i think i'll give his book a miss.
On a similar note, have you read 'The God delusion' By Richard Dawkins? If not, and if you are a keen reader, i would recommend you do,
I've read enough atheist shit and don't need to read this specific one. Besides, I'm not the one risking my eternity...

crin63

01-27-2010, 03:21 PM

Well at least you're honest about it, in this sense i would see you as quiet a fundamentalist Christian if you do not mind such a label. Rather than allot of liberal Christians which seem to dominate most schools of thought.

Ofcourse God can be seen in everything, it all depends on your definition of god.

Fair play, though i do not understand that myself.

As i said, i know they do not 'want' me to go to hell, however, in wanting to go to heaven, and in hoping that they are following the right god, they must then hope that when an atheist dies they go to hell, because if not then they have it all wrong.

You most certainly can call me a Fundamentalist because I am. I'm also a Baptist.

For me, sure I want to go to heaven, but heaven is just a bonus and really wasn't my reason for becoming a Christian. I realized that I was estranged from God, separated from him by my sins and because of my sins. It was like there was this giant hole in my life because there was something missing but I didn't know what it was. I realized what was missing one day and I wanted to be reconciled with God. That is when I began to search for God. I have to say that I also believe God revealed to me that giant hole and what I was missing.

I don't want any athiest to go to hell although I am absolutely convinced that they will but its not what I want for anyone.

Noir

01-27-2010, 03:23 PM

not ironic at all.....we both view a sunset and see beauty.....I see more than you, because I view the planning and gift behind it.....all you see is "shit happens"......

Now you are just making senseless statements. 'I see more beauty than you' Seriously man, grow up.
And it is ironic, if it were to happen that I am right, and there is not creator, then you would view the same sunset in a completly different way, because you believe that it is the creator that you believe in that has given it beauty, not the sunset itself.

actually, from here it makes no difference at all......I can see where it makes a huge difference from your perspective......regardless, you have to acknowledge it's where you choose to be....

It makes a massive difference, when you say you 'know' something that means it is based in fact. Anyone who makes statements about the supernatural/divine/holy ect and says that those statements are fact is either lying or an idiot, because no one knows, we merely believe what is more probable in our own minds.

-Cp

01-27-2010, 03:26 PM

no.....they will be where they chose to go....it isn't a question of "fault", it's a question of choice....

That's one of the DUMBEST things so-called "Christians" say...

NOBODY CHOOSES TO GO TO A FICTITIOUS PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT - so stop saying that kind of crap...

Noir

01-27-2010, 03:29 PM

yet you thought it sad that I believed nature had a creator?......how oddly self contradictory.......

personally I think it would detract from the Mona Lisa if I believed the paint had just happened to fall from the sky in that pattern.....

No, you are twisting my words ever so slightly, but enough to change their meaning, i do not find it sad that you believe that nature has a creator, i do however find it sad that you do not judge something by its beauty, but on the assumption that it must have been part of a gods will.

Putting that into context, you do not see a sunset as beautiful because it is beautiful, but because god made it beautiful, you do not love the people in life that you love because you love them, but because though god you can love them ect ect.

It is your view that something my only be judged by the context of a creator that i fine sad.

Noir

01-27-2010, 03:32 PM

I've read enough atheist shit and don't need to read this specific one. Besides, I'm not the one risking my eternity...

LOL

I like the idea that when you suggested reading material to me you quipped that i should read it "unless of course you're too closed-minded." and yet when i offer some to you, you reply with what i assume you to believe an 'open-minded' response :laugh2:

-Cp

01-27-2010, 03:34 PM

Noir

01-27-2010, 03:43 PM

Noir - don't pay attention to those that misread the scriptures - your Grandparents - and those "countless billions" will ultimately be reconciled back to God. It plainly tells us this in the Bible - does that mean they'll escape God's judgement? No but they're not going to be "burning for eternity" in a man-made-up place called Hell.

Oh i don't pay attention to any of it, its all made up lol,

I just find the variation within just one religion amazing,

-Cp

01-27-2010, 03:46 PM

Oh i don't pay attention to any of it, its all made up lol,

I just find the variation within just one religion amazing,

Me too - good thing I'm not into Religion at all..

Evidently most folks never got the memo that "God isn't a Christian"...

Mr. P

01-27-2010, 03:52 PM

This kid is kickin ASS! I love it!! :laugh2:

Abbey Marie

01-27-2010, 05:06 PM

This kid is kickin ASS! I love it!! :laugh2:

How so?

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 05:57 PM

Now you are just making senseless statements. 'I see more beauty than you' Seriously man, grow up.
And it is ironic, if it were to happen that I am right, and there is not creator, then you would view the same sunset in a completly different way, because you believe that it is the creator that you believe in that has given it beauty, not the sunset itself.
grow up?....dude, there is no way I would want to change into what you have.....deal with it.....

It makes a massive difference, when you say you 'know' something that means it is based in fact. Anyone who makes statements about the supernatural/divine/holy ect and says that those statements are fact is either lying or an idiot, because no one knows, we merely believe what is more probable in our own minds.
dude, it makes no difference at all to me whether I simply believe it or know it.....either way I accept it.....life goes on, it ends, what happens, happens.....

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 05:58 PM

That's one of the DUMBEST things so-called "Christians" say...

NOBODY CHOOSES TO GO TO A FICTITIOUS PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT - so stop saying that kind of crap...

nothing dumb about it, CP....you're going exactly where you want to go......

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 06:04 PM

No, you are twisting my words ever so slightly, but enough to change their meaning, i do not find it sad that you believe that nature has a creator, i do however find it sad that you do not judge something by its beauty, but on the assumption that it must have been part of a gods will.

lol...and you accuse ME of twisting words?.....why do you pretend I don't judge something by its beauty?.....do you think I find a bucket of mud as beautiful as a sunset?.....do you think I find an atheist's thought patterns as attractive as a choreographed dance?......

Putting that into context, you do not see a sunset as beautiful because it is beautiful, but because god made it beautiful, you do not love the people in life that you love because you love them, but because though god you can love them ect ect.

nice move that.....now you can accuse me of not loving people as a bonus allegation......or was that bogus, I always get confused.....

and people wonder why I consider atheists ignorant....

Noir

01-27-2010, 06:15 PM

grow up?....dude, there is no way I would want to change into what you have.....deal with it.....

I'm not saying you should want to change, i'm just saying don't be so patronising as to say 'I see more beauty than you'

dude, it makes no difference at all to me whether I simply believe it or know it.....either way I accept it.....life goes on, it ends, what happens, happens.....

It makes no difference to you whether you make a statement of fact or opinion? Fair enough, i mean, its not like it totally changes what you are saying, right? =/

Noir

01-27-2010, 06:21 PM

lol...and you accuse ME of twisting words?.....why do you pretend I don't judge something by its beauty?.....do you think I find a bucket of mud as beautiful as a sunset?.....do you think I find an atheist's thought patterns as attractive as a choreographed dance?......

Me twisting words? You said it yourself

Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?

actually, no...

You can not find beauty in nature without god, ergo you can not find something beautiful simply because it is beautiful.

nice move that.....now you can accuse me of not loving people as a bonus allegation......or was that bogus, I always get confused.....

It was a natural extension of what you said about beauty, but ofcourse i should of asked, and so i shall now, Can you find love in nature without attributing it to god?

and people wonder why I consider atheists ignorant....

At the very least just consider me ignorant, don't be tarring other people such judgements, i am not speaking on behalf of all atheists, just myself.

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 07:17 PM

I'm not saying you should want to change, i'm just saying don't be so patronising as to say 'I see more beauty than you'

you specifically said you saw less than I did, so how can it be wrong to say I saw more?.....

It makes no difference to you whether you make a statement of fact or opinion? Fair enough, i mean, its not like it totally changes what you are saying, right? =/
as a matter of fact, it doesn't make any difference to anyone......God is no more, nor is he any less, if I believe, know, or even deny him.....

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2010, 07:28 PM

You can not find beauty in nature without god, ergo you can not find something beautiful simply because it is beautiful.

that is your twist.....I see the beauty of nature as well as you do.....you are the one that does not experience the fullness....

It was a natural extension of what you said about beauty, but ofcourse i should of asked, and so i shall now, Can you find love in nature without attributing it to god?
I wouldn't....but again your error is thus to assume I don't find love....

At the very least just consider me ignorant, don't be tarring other people such judgements, i am not speaking on behalf of all atheists, just myself.
ah, at the very least I would enjoy the surprise of finding an intelligent atheist.....

Noir

01-27-2010, 07:31 PM

you specifically said you saw less than I did, so how can it be wrong to say I saw more?.....

Where did i say i saw less beauty than you? Please quote.

as a matter of fact, it doesn't make any difference to anyone......God is no more, nor is he any less, if I believe, know, or even deny him.....

Very true, however, as i said before, you can not know because you do not know.

-Cp

01-27-2010, 07:41 PM

nothing dumb about it, CP....you're going exactly where you want to go......

That is a Biblical FALSEHOOD.. stop spouting that antibiblical crap...

Noir

01-27-2010, 07:49 PM

that is your twist.....I see the beauty of nature as well as you do.....you are the one that does not experience the fullness....

Its not my twist, you said it yourself and i quoted you, as anyone else with eyes will be able to see.

I wouldn't....but again your error is thus to assume I don't find love....

You're now saying the same about love! And i am not assuming that you do have not found love, what i am saying is that you only believe in love, and beauty, because you believe in god.

ah, at the very least I would enjoy the surprise of finding an intelligent atheist.....

Indeedy, i mean all atheists are thick right? Like what did Einstein ever know, right?
Making such stupid statements put you on a par with Hogwash and how he would be surprised at finding an intelligent back person =/

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 08:29 AM

Where did i say i saw less beauty than you? Please quote.

we both saw the same sunset....in addition, I saw the design behind it.....that is more, not less.....

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 08:30 AM

That is a Biblical FALSEHOOD.. stop spouting that antibiblical crap...

nothing anti-biblical about it.....I don't take theology lessons about Christianity from people who state they aren't Christians......and I am quite familiar with what the bible says, thank you very much......

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 08:32 AM

You're now saying the same about love! And i am not assuming that you do have not found love, what i am saying is that you only believe in love, and beauty, because you believe in god.

/shrugs....but why are you saying that.....I have not said it....it is not true.....you have no reason to make that assumption......what I AM saying, is that you cannot see as much about beauty, or love, if you cannot see the One who created both......

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 08:37 AM

Indeedy, i mean all atheists are thick right? Like what did Einstein ever know, right?
Making such stupid statements put you on a par with Hogwash and how he would be surprised at finding an intelligent back person =/

/shrugs.....Einstein wasn't an atheist.....claiming he was simply demonstrates how desperate atheists are for acceptance in society.....

and thanks for reminding me....since he agreed with me about seeing more in the sunsets....

"When that question was put to him, Einstein once responded, "I
believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions
of human beings."

glockmail

01-28-2010, 11:10 AM

LOL

I like the idea that when you suggested reading material to me you quipped that i should read it "unless of course you're too closed-minded." and yet when i offer some to you, you reply with what i assume you to believe an 'open-minded' response :laugh2: Dude I grew up in Massachusetts where we were required to read lots of atheist shit. I've read my share of it and over several decades made up my own open mind. You, however, were raised by atheists who themselves were raised by atheists and are sadly in need of an education. It is you who are closed minded, not I.

-Cp

01-28-2010, 02:06 PM

nothing anti-biblical about it.....I don't take theology lessons about Christianity from people who state they aren't Christians......and I am quite familiar with what the bible says, thank you very much......

If you were quite familiar with what it said then you wouldn't be proclaiming such falsehoods about it..

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 02:26 PM

Abbey Marie

01-28-2010, 04:55 PM

and what falsehood would that be?......all I have said is that people who end up in hell are those who have chosen not to believe in God.....that is certainly biblical, as well as fundamental to Christian theology.....it may not be compatible with -CPianity, but there are very few around who practice that religion.....

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
—Matthew 5:22

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
—Matthew 10:28

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
—Mark 9:44

They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
—2 Thessalonians 1:9

Noir

01-28-2010, 06:25 PM

we both saw the same sunset....in addition, I saw the design behind it.....that is more, not less.....

LOL

So what you meant when you said

you specifically said you saw less than I did, so how can it be wrong to say I saw more?.....
Was that you assume because i do not believe in a creator that i must see less beauty :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I tell ya PMP, you know how to twist them words alrght,

Noir

01-28-2010, 06:32 PM

/shrugs....but why are you saying that.....I have not said it....it is not true.....you have no reason to make that assumption......what I AM saying, is that you cannot see as much about beauty, or love, if you cannot see the One who created both......

But this is exactly the point i am trying to make!
You can not appreciate the real beauty of something based on beauty alone. You have to attribuate it to a creator,

May i ask if you also do the same with not so nice things as beauty and love? But say with Ugliness and hatred?

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 07:01 PM

Was that you assume because i do not believe in a creator that i must see less beauty :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

d'uh....I would have assumed my meaning was obvious from the git-go.....

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 07:04 PM

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
—Matthew 5:22

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
—Matthew 10:28

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
—Mark 9:44

They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
—2 Thessalonians 1:9

Matthew 10:42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:07 PM

d'uh....I would have assumed my meaning was obvious from the git-go.....

But not only did you make an assumption for yourself, you then lied by saying "you specifically said you saw less than I did, so how can it be wrong to say I saw more?....."

Its bad enough to make an assumption about what someone said, but to then go on and claim they said your assumption is pretty pathetic IMO, and distorts debate.

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 07:08 PM

But this is exactly the point i am trying to make!
You can not appreciate the real beauty of something based on beauty alone. You have to attribuate it to a creator,
???....but that is obviously a plus factor, not a minus......I see and appreciate the beauty that everyone else sees.....

May i ask if you also do the same with not so nice things as beauty and love? But say with Ugliness and hatred?
Query: which would be worse, an ugly woman filled with the love of God or an ugly woman filled with spite and anger.....

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 07:10 PM

But not only did you make an assumption for yourself, you then lied by saying "you specifically said you saw less than I did, so how can it be wrong to say I saw more?....."

Its bad enough to make an assumption about what someone said, but to then go on and claim they said your assumption is pretty pathetic IMO, and distorts debate.

????....that isn't a lie.....you did say you saw less than I did.....you don't see the hand of God in creation......what is not "less" about that......I didn't "assume" anything about what you said.....it was obvious in your statement.....

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:16 PM

/shrugs.....Einstein wasn't an atheist.....claiming he was simply demonstrates how desperate atheists are for acceptance in society.....

and thanks for reminding me....since he agreed with me about seeing more in the sunsets....

"When that question was put to him, Einstein once responded, "I
believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions
of human beings."

This is pure tosh.

It is hotly debated whether Spinoza's God is panentheist, pantheist, or atheist. But by reading through Einstein's works, which i assume you have not done, it is clear to see that he uses the word 'God' to mean Nature. It is to the eternal annoyance of Atheists that scientists use the word 'God' on this poetic way, because it is certain that once they are dead then the religious will twist these words on them.
Even Steven Hawkings, who is no doubt an atheist still uses the word 'God' as Einstein did, and i bet you in 30 years time i'm having a debate with some idiot who will use a Hawking God quote =/

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:20 PM

Dude I grew up in Massachusetts where we were required to read lots of atheist shit. I've read my share of it and over several decades made up my own open mind. You, however, were raised by atheists who themselves were raised by atheists and are sadly in need of an education. It is you who are closed minded, not I.

I was not raised by atheists. My Dad is Agnostic and my mum is a Christian.

And how dare you imply that 'education' is some sort or requirement to being religious and thus those that are not are stupid or intellectually inferior.

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:28 PM

???....but that is obviously a plus factor, not a minus......I see and appreciate the beauty that everyone else sees.....

This is clearly going nowhere, if you can not see something for its own beauty but the fact that something created it, fair enough. I find that pretty sad myself, but such is life.

Query: which would be worse, an ugly woman filled with the love of God or an ugly woman filled with spite and anger.....[/QUOTE]

Who's to say an Ugly women filled with the love of god is not also filled with spite and anger? It all depends on how you define god.

Also can you answer my question directly rather than asking another question in reply, if you see a creator in beauty and love, Do you also see the same creator in ugliness and hatred?

82Marine89

01-28-2010, 07:33 PM

This is clearly going nowhere, if you can not see something for its own beauty but the fact that something created it, fair enough. I find that pretty sad myself, but such is life.

Query: which would be worse, an ugly woman filled with the love of God or an ugly woman filled with spite and anger.....

Who's to say an Ugly women filled with the love of god is not also filled with spite and anger? It all depends on how you define god.

Also can you answer my question directly rather than asking another question in reply, if you see a creator in beauty and love, Do you also see the same creator in ugliness and hatred?

...If you answer... ...a question with a question... ...you don't have to answer the question... :laugh2:

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:36 PM

????....that isn't a lie.....you did say you saw less than I did.....you don't see the hand of God in creation......what is not "less" about that......I didn't "assume" anything about what you said.....it was obvious in your statement.....

It is a lie, i did not say i saw less than you did, I appreciate the beauty of something based on its beauty. Thus you assume, from your prespective that i must "see less" if you really want to think that then fine, but don't start posting it and saying that i said it, when i didn't, that is truly dishonest.

You inferred something from a statement that i did not imply, that is called assuming, you have since gone on to twice claim its 'obvious' to try and justify your assumption, but i will have none of it.

Noir

01-28-2010, 07:38 PM

...If you answer... ...a question with a question... ...you don't have to answer the question... :laugh2:

LOL, i see the irony in what i said.

However, PMPs question supposes that we must assume that the God women is not filled with spite and anger, this is an assumption that i would rather not make, and so will only answer with a question.

82Marine89

01-28-2010, 07:55 PM

LOL, i see the irony in what i said.

However, PMPs question supposes that we must assume that the God women is not filled with spite and anger, this is an assumption that i would rather not make, and so will only answer with a question.

Everyone is filled with happiness and anger. It is up to you which you will allow to control your life. There is no god that controls it or puts it inside you.

SIDEBAR* Noir, I think you are more of an Agnostic like myself than you are an Atheist. Ever given it any thought?

Noir

01-28-2010, 08:14 PM

Everyone is filled with happiness and anger. It is up to you which you will allow to control your life. There is no god that controls it or puts it inside you.

SIDEBAR* Noir, I think you are more of an Agnostic like myself than you are an Atheist. Ever given it any thought?

Why would you think I'm more Agnostic? I do not believe in any Gods, or that there is anything that can not be explained through science.

glockmail

01-28-2010, 08:18 PM

I was not raised by atheists. My Dad is Agnostic and my mum is a Christian.

And how dare you imply that 'education' is some sort or requirement to being religious and thus those that are not are stupid or intellectually inferior. You're a disappointment to your mum, why do you hate her?

Sorry bud but you are in need of an education. That's actually a compliment because atheists either need an education or else are too dumb to be taught.

Noir

01-28-2010, 08:24 PM

You're a disappointment to your mum, why do you hate her?

Sorry bud but you are in need of an education. That's actually a compliment because atheists either need an education or else are too dumb to be taught.

Well she hides her disappointment well, and i don't, i love her lots and lots :)

lol, well i just i'm just too dumb to be taught, such is life.

glockmail

01-28-2010, 08:27 PM

Mum's a pretty good at hiding their disappointment from their sons. They tend to fear rebellion.

Noir

01-28-2010, 08:31 PM

Mum's a pretty good at hiding their disappointment from their sons. They tend to fear rebellion.

Lol, damn right, cus i'm such a rebel, its hard drugs and erratic sex antics all the way with me,

glockmail

01-28-2010, 08:34 PM

Lol, damn right, cus i'm such a rebel, its hard drugs and erratic sex antics all the way with me, Those aren't the only ways to rebel, obviously. For me it was getting drunk; for you its shunning God.

Noir

01-28-2010, 08:40 PM

Those aren't the only ways to rebel, obviously. For me it was getting drunk; for you its shunning God.

So...she hid her disappointment in me being an atheist, because in showing her disappointment i may rebel by...er...shunning God?

glockmail

01-28-2010, 08:43 PM

So...she hid her disappointment in me being an atheist, because in showing her disappointment i may rebel by...er...shunning God? No she doesn't want you to do something that can't be reversed.

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 10:49 PM

This is pure tosh.

It is hotly debated whether Spinoza's God is panentheist, pantheist, or atheist. But by reading through Einstein's works, which i assume you have not done, it is clear to see that he uses the word 'God' to mean Nature. It is to the eternal annoyance of Atheists that scientists use the word 'God' on this poetic way, because it is certain that once they are dead then the religious will twist these words on them.
Even Steven Hawkings, who is no doubt an atheist still uses the word 'God' as Einstein did, and i bet you in 30 years time i'm having a debate with some idiot who will use a Hawking God quote =/

I expect it's possible to pretend Einstein was an atheist....so long as you ignore everything he's ever said as well as the definition of "atheist".......apparently it's sufficient for you that if he isn't a "Christian" he's an atheist.....like all the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs......

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 10:52 PM

Also can you answer my question directly rather than asking another question in reply, if you see a creator in beauty and love, Do you also see the same creator in ugliness and hatred?

what kind of answer do you want....you expect an answer that God makes things uglier and more hateful?.....I have answered he makes it less.....I know you don't like that answer, but who gives a fuck what you like, it's still a valid answer.....

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 10:54 PM

It is a lie, i did not say i saw less than you did, I appreciate the beauty of something based on its beauty. Thus you assume, from your prespective that i must "see less" if you really want to think that then fine, but don't start posting it and saying that i said it, when i didn't, that is truly dishonest.

You inferred something from a statement that i did not imply, that is called assuming, you have since gone on to twice claim its 'obvious' to try and justify your assumption, but i will have none of it.

/shrugs......I have stated what I believe to be completely true, how can it then be a lie?...I think what I have stated is patently obvious......quite frankly, I don't give a shit what you will "have" and don't like being called dishonest for stating what I believe....

Noir

01-28-2010, 11:01 PM

I expect it's possible to pretend Einstein was an atheist....so long as you ignore everything he's ever said as well as the definition of "atheist".......apparently it's sufficient for you that if he isn't a "Christian" he's an atheist.....like all the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs......

LOL

I define atheism as - the belief that God (of any religion) does not exist.

You need only look at what Einstien said to know his beliefs, here are three examples

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

As i said, the word 'God' was used by Einstien to talk about nature and natural laws, it is nothing to do with an religious god.

Carl Sagan put it well, saying "If by 'God' you mean a set of physical laws* that govern the universe, then their clearly is a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to gravity"

*As Einstein did.

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 11:06 PM

LOL

I define atheism as - the belief that God (of any religion) does not exist.

You need only look at what Einstien said to know his beliefs, here are three examples

As i said, the word 'God' was used by Einstien to talk about nature and natural laws, it is nothing to do with an religious god.

Carl Sagan put it well, saying "If by 'God' you mean a set of physical laws* that govern the universe, then their clearly is a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to gravity"

*As Einstein did.

The quote I provided obviously shows him to be a Deist, similar to Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln....and a Deist is obviously not an atheist.....

Noir

01-28-2010, 11:10 PM

what kind of answer do you want....you expect an answer that God makes things uglier and more hateful?.....I have answered he makes it less.....I know you don't like that answer, but who gives a fuck what you like, it's still a valid answer.....

I want an answer that is the truth. I know that Darwinism was largely reviled by the Chruch when it was brought out because it showed just how uncaring and violent nature is,

Interesting that you would say that the beautiful things that god are made are more beautiful, but that the horrid things that are made are not more horrid.

PostmodernProphet

01-28-2010, 11:15 PM

I want an answer that is the truth. I know that Darwinism was largely reviled by the Chruch when it was brought out because it showed just how uncaring and violent nature is,

Interesting that you would say that the beautiful things that god are made are more beautiful, but that the horrid things that are made are not more horrid.

not to be unexpected at all.....in truth, it is consistent....he makes all things more beautiful....what could be more obvious......

Noir

01-28-2010, 11:27 PM

The quote I provided obviously shows him to be a Deist, similar to Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln....and a Deist is obviously not an atheist.....

You cleary have no clue if you are calling Einstien a Deist.

Lets go through this.

deism |ˈdēizəm|
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Einstien Quotes

-I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
-I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
-This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

I think he's pretty clear in that.

What you quoted him as saying was about Spinoza's God, and that believing in Spinoza's God somehow makes him a Deist, either you know not know anything about Spinoza's God or you are deliberately trying to mislead. Spinoza's God is on of the laws of the nature of existance, infact it plays perfectly back into what i quoted before

"If by 'God' you mean a set of physical laws* that govern the universe, then their clearly is a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to gravity"

*As Einstein did.

Only a fool would describe Einstein as religious, it is just unfortunate that he used the religious metaphor of god when talking about the Universe, and so those who want him to be religious will mis quote him, even though there are a dozen other quotes of him saying he is not religious and does not believe in super-nautral creatures or in anything that man can not explain through science.

Pericles

01-29-2010, 01:13 AM

No, a beautiful sunset is beautiful whether a God has made it or not in my view.

This is perfectly to the point. Beauty that is contrived, rather than chanced upon, is not beauty but a put-up job and a sham. Beauty that we are compelled to recognize by the machinations of another mind, is the very opposite of beauty: in fact it can only be the destruction of all meaning. But Noir has put it best, above: if it's really beautiful, this is a fact that God has no power to decide for or against.

I said "how sad" because when i asked "Can you not find beauty in nature without attributing it to a god?" You said "no" meaning that you only find it beautiful because you think that a god made it, and not because it is beautiful. Quite ironic that you would then go on to ask me about things being 'less beautiful'

Again, perfectly put. Those who cannot recognize something beautiful for its own sake, but only on account of some other being's say-so, have no real appreciation of beauty at all.

The trouble you've been having with the believers in this thread, Noir, is that they are too blind - aesthetically, and yes, even spiritually - to see the plain truth of life. You're real young, but you get it. Cheers to you.

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 06:42 AM

Only a fool would describe Einstein as religious, it is just unfortunate that he used the religious metaphor of god when talking about the Universe, and so those who want him to be religious will mis quote him, even though there are a dozen other quotes of him saying he is not religious and does not believe in super-nautral creatures or in anything that man can not explain through science.

you confuse "theism" and "religious"......being non-religious in itself does not make you an atheist.....Franklin and Lincoln both rejected "religion" but acknowledged "deity"....as did Einstein....

Spinoza's God is on of the laws of the nature of existance, infact it plays perfectly back into what i quoted before

next I suspect you'll be telling me Spinoza was an atheist?.....you'll disappoint Shelley's God-intoxicated man if you do that.....

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 06:46 AM

The trouble you've been having with the believers in this thread, Noir, is that they are too blind - aesthetically, and yes, even spiritually - to see the plain truth of life. .

the irony is heavy......atheists criticizing the believers for being spiritually blind to truth......./grins.....

Noir

01-29-2010, 07:00 AM

you confuse "theism" and "religious"......being non-religious in itself does not make you an atheist.....Franklin and Lincoln both rejected "religion" but acknowledged "deity"....as did Einstein....

I can not speak for Franklin and Lincoln, i don't know anything about them, however, i do know much of Einstein, which i can tell you do not. Just how many quotes of his saying does not believe in Gods do i have to produce? He believed that 'God' is the law of Physics, 'God' is the nature of the Universe, and so forth, in the same why the Steven Hawkins is currently describing the nature of Physics as 'God'

next I suspect you'll be telling me Spinoza was an atheist?.....you'll disappoint Shelley's God-intoxicated man if you do that.....

Spinoza was a pantheist, and i would be willing to concede that Einstein may well of been a pantheist upon reflection, however, the line between Pantheism and atheism is such that it is in no way a definite, and indeed its only differential factor is the words you use to describe the world around you, not necessarily the meaning you apply to those words.

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 07:21 AM

I find atheists long for company....I suspect the loneliness gets to them after a while....as a response they begin to pretend other people are atheists, too.....intelligent people......I suspect it's merely a reflex......"Look! Smart people can be atheists too!".......except, it never turns out to be true......the smart people weren't really atheists.....it was all in the atheist's imagination......such as it is.....

why is it that some can say "God is the nature of the universe" and pretend it's the statement, "there is no God"......logically, if you are an atheist, you would say.....there is the universe, and it has laws.....you wouldn't say anything about "god"......"Einstein is like Spinoza"...."Spinoza is a pantheist"....."Einstein is an atheist"......"The line between pantheism and atheism is indefinite"......bullshit.....the line between saying deity is everywhere you look and saying there is no such thing as a deity is "indefinite"?......what do you suspect both Spinoza and Einstein would say about intelligent design?

Noir

01-29-2010, 07:25 AM

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 07:30 AM

Wow, thus far in this thread i have found out i am uneducated, a disappointment to my mother, and lonely, anything else i should know about? :laugh2:

that depends.....is your avatar REALLY a picture of you?.....

Noir

01-29-2010, 07:47 AM

that depends.....is your avatar REALLY a picture of you?.....

Yeps, why? You gonna tell me i'm sexeh aswell? ;)

Pericles

01-29-2010, 09:35 AM

the irony is heavy......atheists criticizing the believers for being spiritually blind to truth......./grins.....

I don't believe in any gods, but I do believe in irony. And of course you would be blind to the truth that spiritual atheism is possible. We see it with the Buddha. We see it with Spinoza. We see it with Einstein. But it is simply beyond the simplistic categories you approach life with, for you to be able to grasp.

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 09:42 AM

I don't believe in any gods, but I do believe in irony. And of course you would be blind to the truth that spiritual atheism is possible. We see it with the Buddha. We see it with Spinoza. We see it with Einstein. But it is simply beyond the simplistic categories you approach life with, for you to be able to grasp.

the only thing I am unable to grasp is your strange definition of "atheism".....Buddhists, Spinoza and Einstein are not atheists....I will admit that atheists can be religious, even fundamentalist....but one thing they can NOT be is "spiritual".......or even metaphysical.....

I suspect what you may in truth be, rather than "atheist" is a "gnostic".....they had a tendency to patch together a belief system with little parts of this and little parts of that, with total disregard for inconsistancies and outright contradictions......

glockmail

01-29-2010, 09:46 AM

Wow, thus far in this thread i have found out i am uneducated, a disappointment to my mother, and lonely, anything else i should know about? :laugh2: Well, you have a crappy opinion about cars...

Pericles

01-29-2010, 11:16 AM

the only thing I am unable to grasp is your strange definition of "atheism".....Buddhists, Spinoza and Einstein are not atheists....

Why is it so important for you to deny that they are atheists? After all, their views are surely outnumbered by the vast number of people who are straightforward theists. Why don't you take comfort in your numerical superiority? Feeling threatened, somehow?

Spinoza himself spoke of the ultimate metaphysical principle as "God or Nature." Spinoza specifically denied that this Nature was a personality, or was a teleological force. Spinoza would have disregarded "intelligent design."

The Buddha certainly, by Western standards, was an atheist. The ulitmate spiritual reality, for him, referenced no personality at all.

Einstein could be said to be an example of someone operating in the Hindu tradition of jnana yoga, the way to ultimate spiritual insight through analytical understanding.

Each of these men are atheists because they each would deny the existence of any sort of personal divinity. In deny this as well, and that is what makes me an atheist. But that is not to say that I deny the existence of something that is metaphysically ultimate. I do not deny that, because we can reason towards such a conclusion, like the philosophers of the Vedanta did, without the need of any special revelation. And that is what makes it make sense for me to speak of spiritual atheism.

I will admit that atheists can be religious, even fundamentalist....but one thing they can NOT be is "spiritual".......or even metaphysical.....

What's clear is that the idea of a "spiritual atheist" sounds strange to people brought up in the Western world, because it outruns the usual categories you're accustomed to thinking in. It's also clear that if there is a true sense in which the atheist can be, for lack of a better word, "spiritual," that this directly threatens the identity of religious people, directly threatens their truth. So, quoting you, "the one thing they (the atheists) can NOT be is "spiritual"/metaphysical...". Why? Because, if we do take Einstein at his word, communion with transcendence can be assimilated to science, and everything that contradicts science (viz. miracles) can be blown off as the the accretions of superstition and magical beliefs.

I suspect what you may in truth be, rather than "atheist" is a "gnostic".....they had a tendency to patch together a belief system with little parts of this and little parts of that, with total disregard for inconsistancies and outright contradictions......

Man, Protagoras, you make me laugh. What you're describing with your statement here, is Christianity... :laugh:

PostmodernProphet

01-29-2010, 01:57 PM

Why is it so important for you to deny that they are atheists?

first of all, someone else brought up Einstein and claimed he was an atheist, I didn't bring him into the conversation....
second, I denied he was an atheist because he obviously isn't...accuracy in a debate is essential, or there is no reason to debate...

Spinoza himself spoke of the ultimate metaphysical principle as "God or Nature." Spinoza specifically denied that this Nature was a personality, or was a teleological force. Spinoza would have disregarded "intelligent design."
absurd....Spinoza, like Einstein, would be the first to deny that the harmony of nature was the result of random chance....

The Buddha certainly, by Western standards, was an atheist. The ulitmate spiritual reality, for him, referenced no personality at all.
really, so in Buddhism, when they say that the individual attains deification they really mean the individual attains non-existence?.....have you confirmed that with your spiritual advisor?.....

Einstein could be said to be an example of someone operating in the Hindu tradition of jnana yoga, the way to ultimate spiritual insight through analytical understanding.
again then, obviously not an atheist....

But that is not to say that I deny the existence of something that is metaphysically ultimate. I do not deny that, because we can reason towards such a conclusion, like the philosophers of the Vedanta did, without the need of any special revelation.

and as I predicted....another atheist denies he's a real atheist when confronted by the illogic of his position......

82Marine89

01-29-2010, 02:04 PM

Why would you think I'm more Agnostic? I do not believe in any Gods, or that there is anything that can not be explained through science.

Because you are constantly questioning his existence. If you were a true atheist, god would just be another word in the dictionary, but you don't appear to feel that.

Pericles

01-30-2010, 12:32 AM

first of all, someone else brought up Einstein and claimed he was an atheist, I didn't bring him into the conversation.... second, I denied he was an atheist because he obviously isn't...accuracy in a debate is essential, or there is no reason to debate...

Well, if you acknowledge that accuracy is essential in debate, why are you lying? The accurate definition of atheism, is the denial of the existence of any personal divinities. The Buddha, Spinoza, and Einstein, then, were all atheists.

absurd....Spinoza, like Einstein, would be the first to deny that the harmony of nature was the result of random chance....

Yes, so? To believe that everything in a system is determined by the prior states of that system, requires no design or plan whatsoever. Again, Spinoza specifically rejected telelogical cosmologies. That's a fact.

really, so in Buddhism, when they say that the individual attains deification they really mean the individual attains non-existence?.....

Your knowledge of Eastern religions is obviously pretty pitiful. Yes, enlightenment means the dissolution of the ego, with all its attendant limitations.

again then, obviously not an atheist....

Why advertise your ignorance of other worldviews in this way? Taoism, Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Vedanta of Hinduism are all atheistic worldviews. Though in your ignorance of these non-Christian worldviews, you may not be able to understand it, it is nevertheless the case that they all represent forms of a spiritual atheism.

and as I predicted....another atheist denies he's a real atheist when confronted by the illogic of his position......

In all our exchanges, you've never made a logic argument in favor of your beliefs, much less pointed to any alleged "illogic" in mine. Just like Protagoras, you're a Sophist - you ignore arguments you can't defend against, and spend the rest of the time resorting to strawman tactics to present your opponent's arguments in a unfavorable light. You do it to Noir every day. He calls you on it, but you can't seem to give it up.

Noir

01-30-2010, 12:42 AM

Because you are constantly questioning his existence. If you were a true atheist, god would just be another word in the dictionary, but you don't appear to feel that.

I just find it amazing that obviously intelligent people believe in such myths, i can to some extent understand the spiritual side, that users like mrskurtsprincess, but all the miracles and virgins births ect are just plain silly.

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2010, 08:43 AM

Well, if you acknowledge that accuracy is essential in debate, why are you lying? The accurate definition of atheism, is the denial of the existence of any personal divinities. The Buddha, Spinoza, and Einstein, then, were all atheists.
????....you make up a new definition of "atheism" and accuse ME of lying?.....
Free Dictionary
various definitions of "atheist" on the internet
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
MW
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Oxford
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

YourDictionary
a person who believes that there is no God

Dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I find none that use the word "personal".....

Your knowledge of Eastern religions is obviously pretty pitiful. Yes, enlightenment means the dissolution of the ego, with all its attendant limitations.

yet oddly, it remains superior to yours.....

Why advertise your ignorance of other worldviews in this way? Taoism, Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Vedanta of Hinduism are all atheistic worldviews. Though in your ignorance of these non-Christian worldviews, you may not be able to understand it, it is nevertheless the case that they all represent forms of a spiritual atheism.

lol....and in so saying, you demonstrate your ignorance of atheism.....amusing...is there any reason to waste further time with you?

much less pointed to any alleged "illogic" in mine.
well let me repeat it then.....you claim to base your beliefs upon reason rather than faith, yet you cannot state a rational basis for your beliefs.....your denial of the existence of your faith demonstrates the irrationality of your "reason".......the only way to avoid that problem is to eventually say "well, I'm not a REAL atheist....I'm only a weak atheist, or try something new like "I'm a spiritual atheist".....I guess that's sort of like a non-Christian Christian......

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2010, 08:45 AM

but all the miracles and virgins births ect are just plain silly.

why?.....does it strike you as illogical that a deity capable of creating DNA couldn't find a way to manipulate it?......that a deity capable of designing sperm couldn't produce one?.......that a deity capable of thinking up an egg couldn't figure out how to fertilize one?.....

the issue isn't whether virgin birth is "silly", the issue is simply whether you accept the existence of a deity capable of creating......once you're beyond that, nothing is problematic.....

Noir

01-30-2010, 08:59 AM

why?.....does it strike you as illogical that a deity capable of creating DNA couldn't find a way to manipulate it?......that a deity capable of designing sperm couldn't produce one?.......that a deity capable of thinking up an egg couldn't figure out how to fertilize one?.....

the issue isn't whether virgin birth is "silly", the issue is simply whether you accept the existence of a deity capable of creating......once you're beyond that, nothing is problematic.....

Well the whole idea of a deity able to do such things is daft in the first place.

Never mind the fact that even if you believe that God(s) exist then you have to chose from one of the countless thousands of different gods there are, and then claim that your one (or few) is the one (or few) true god(s) =/

Also, nice for you to mention that "once you're beyond that, nothing is problematic" Cus after all, he can't tell you to murder your own kids, right xD

Pericles

01-30-2010, 10:05 AM

????....you make up a new definition of "atheism" and accuse ME of lying?.....
Free Dictionary
various definitions of "atheist" on the internet

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no god

Oxford
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

YourDictionary
a person who believes that there is no God

Dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I find none that use the word "personal".....

Alright, Protagoras. Here is a fine example of how you typically operate. You state the exact opposite of the truth, and all the while maintain the truth is on your side! Your chutzpah is truly impressive. What I deny, what an atheist denies, is the existence of any individual entity - a being - that functions and acts in the manner typical of a "god" (so, deliberately creating the world, and imparting to it moral rules). This individual entity is invariably understood be an intelligent agent - that is why I use the words "person" and "personality." The attribute of being a personality is entailed in the ordinary conception of "god," entailed in the definitions you've cited, above.

Are you not capable of even the simplest logical inferences? Or, is passing over in silence this obvious point, an example of the way in which you lie?

lol....and in so saying, you demonstrate your ignorance of atheism.....amusing...is there any reason to waste further time with you?

Again, you state the exact opposite of the truth. I'm the one who's been wasting time with you - as I watch you bob, weave, shuck, jive, and dodge your clear obligation (which I have made plain by an argument which you have not even tried to refute) to supply others with a reason why your worldview is true, and not your own personal hobbyhorse.

I'll make you a deal, Protagoras. I'll supply again the opening statement of my worldview. Again, in this debate, it's actually your obligation to give the opening statement (again, as I have demonstrated at length - and don't lie again and claim I haven't). Still, I'll give the counter-thesis to the thesis of theism. But, before we go further, we have to proceed by the ordinary rules, and you have to give an opening statement giving reasons why anyone else should believe as you do, by citing evidence that others can independently assess.

I know I'm calling your bluff here. It's clear that you don't have the intellectual honesty to play by the rules. But I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong:

'Again, my atheist beliefs are predicated upon someone else coming forward with the claims of theism. Since you're clearly not willing to do any work in defense of your worldview, I'll give a quick summary: It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing; It is logically impossible for time to have been created, especially by an intelligent agent; If the agent of creation is truly infinite, there is ultimately no possible distinction between that agent and what he creates (any more than what you imagine in your head is distinct from you); It is impossible that there is any ultimate distinction between 'right' and 'wrong,' if a single agent is the sole arbiter of these terms; It is impossible that we can be morally responsible for our lives, if everthing that we do is pre-determined.

From the above, the fundamentals of the atheist worldview follow, by logic: The world is eternal and uncreated; the relation of difference is metaphysically real and not an illousion (because in the end there is no possible distinction between what an 'infinite' being creates, and the being in question itself); the difference between ethical 'right' and 'wrong' is ultimately decided by a plurality of free actors contesting the meaning of these terms...'

Alright, then. Now it's your turn. Give me some reasons to believe that the god you speak of is real, and not just the stuff of your own fantasy. Maybe, just maybe this time you'll opt for intellectual honesty. I'm not holding my breath, though...

your denial of the existence of your faith demonstrates the irrationality of your "reason"....... the only way to avoid that problem is to eventually say "well, I'm not a REAL atheist....I'm only a weak atheist, or try something new like "I'm a spiritual atheist".....I guess that's sort of like a non-Christian Christian......

Pure strawman tactic. I don't know how valuable it is to do a taxonomy of atheism. I'd grant that there are some atheists who are 'mystical' atheists (myself among them), and others who are pure materialists. But from the point of view of the theist, these views come down to exactly the same thing: the total repudiation of the idea of the existence of gods as individual intelligent agents. That is the relevant sense in which the Buddha, Einstein, and others like them are true atheists. But of course I don't expect you have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You've been called out.

Abbey Marie

01-30-2010, 11:47 AM

:rolleyes: I need a bath-sized towel to wipe off the deluge of arrogance gushing down my monitor from the post above.

Pericles

01-30-2010, 03:05 PM

:rolleyes: I need a bath-sized towel to wipe off the deluge of arrogance gushing down my monitor from the post above.

Why should I show respect for a viewpoint that studiously avoids direct answers to my arguments? And in fact, by making an extended, rational argument I am paying my opponent the compliment of engaging in a real back-and-forth discussion. To have high expectations of your opponent is not arrogance, sister moderator.

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2010, 06:55 PM

Well the whole idea of a deity able to do such things is daft in the first place.

Never mind the fact that even if you believe that God(s) exist then you have to chose from one of the countless thousands of different gods there are, and then claim that your one (or few) is the one (or few) true god(s) =/

Also, nice for you to mention that "once you're beyond that, nothing is problematic" Cus after all, he can't tell you to murder your own kids, right xD

I heard that swoosh again....did you?.....

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2010, 07:08 PM

You state the exact opposite of the truth
let me get this straight....I quote a half dozen respected dictionaries and yuo still claim I am lying?....

I'll make you a deal, Protagoras. I'll supply again the opening statement of my worldview.
no, do what you ought to do....provide a logical basis upon which to conclude that a deity does not exist....you haven't done it that I have seen....I even asked you to provide a link to the place you claim to have done it.....I'm still waiting....

'Again, my atheist beliefs are predicated upon someone else coming forward with the claims of theism.
false start....you cannot base a logical conclusion upon someone else's failure to prove something....try over....

It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing; It is logically impossible for time to have been created, especially by an intelligent agent;
why?....we know scientifically that there was an historic event where matter first existed....it is called the Big Bang.....are you saying the Big Bang is impossible?.....

If the agent of creation is truly infinite, there is ultimately no possible distinction between that agent and what he creates
upon what basis can you prove it is impossible?

It is impossible that there is any ultimate distinction between 'right' and 'wrong,' if a single agent is the sole arbiter of these terms
????....not true....if that single agent identifies the distinction, it is established....

It is impossible that we can be morally responsible for our lives, if everthing that we do is pre-determined
I have had people try this silly argument on me before....I can guarantee you that you will lose this one.....your error is failing to recognize that it is our action which causes the knowledge, not the knowledge which causes our action....

From the above, the fundamentals of the atheist worldview follow, by logic
since all three fail, that's a bit problematic for you....

That is the relevant sense in which the Buddha, Einstein, and others like them are true atheists.
I am curious why it is so important for you to pretend they are....does it somehow make you feel less ignorant to pretend that intelligent people agree with you?......

Noir

01-30-2010, 09:44 PM

I heard that swoosh again....did you?.....

Nope. All I can hear are excuses from you to not refer to what I post and insteed to make w quite pointless and lame insult.

PostmodernProphet

01-30-2010, 10:59 PM

Nope. All I can hear are excuses from you to not refer to what I post and insteed to make w quite pointless and lame insult.

well let me put it in perspective.....you can't accept the concept of a deity because you don't believe in miracles.....you don't believe in miracles because you don't believe in a deity.....NOW can I insult your logic?.....

Pericles

01-31-2010, 12:17 AM

let me get this straight....I quote a half dozen respected dictionaries and yuo still claim I am lying?....

It is a species of lie, when you pass over in silence what is a clear logical implication of each of those definitions you cited. That implication is that "a" god is a particular individual entity, and moreover is one that, as an intelligent moral agent, counts as a personality. Clearly implied by each of the definitions you cited, is that the atheist denies the existence of such personal divinities. When the inference is clear, and you deny it, that is a form of a lie, yes.

no, do what you ought to do....provide a logical basis upon which to conclude that a deity does not exist....you haven't done it that I have seen....I even asked you to provide a link to the place you claim to have done it.....I'm still waiting....

Yep, you're copping out - right on schedule.

false start....you cannot base a logical conclusion upon someone else's failure to prove something....try over....

How not? You can insist Mr. Snuffeluppagus exists, and is not merely the product of your imaginings. If you do not give me some evidence that he exists, I am entirely at my leave to conclude that he does not.

You simply don't grasp that the burden of proof is on you. Or, you know it, and you know your position is hopeless, so you bob and weave.

why?....we know scientifically that there was an historic event where matter first existed....it is called the Big Bang.....are you saying the Big Bang is impossible?.....

You should study more cosmology, less apology. The known universe - known, because we are able to directly observe it - is of finite age. That does not mean that there were not earlier epochs of the cosmos. Logic, in fact, requires that there be (for it is inconceivable that time is not everlasting), and the First Law of Thermodynamics explicitly recognizes it.

upon what basis can you prove it is impossible?

"Infinite" comes to Latin from the Greek term "the unbounded." What is infinite has no limits, no boundaries. Where there are no boundaries, there is inclusion. Where there is inclusion, there is the part-to-whole relationship. By logic, if God is infinite we are part of God. If we finally add the point that God is the plenary reality, the ultimately real, what fundamentally exists, all other existence is entailed in this infinite being - for there is no other place it could be. Monotheism ultimately collapses into pantheism, by logic.

????....not true....if that single agent identifies the distinction, it is established....

By the very meaning of the term "law," there can be no law, if it is identified with the will of a single agent. The very meaning of law, is that it serves as a rule which stands independently of any given moral actor. But there are no rules if the rules are simply the pleasure of an autocrat seated in the stars. A rule that could change at the whim of an autocrat, is not a rule. Monotheism is nothing but the purest form of moral subjectivism and moral relativism. The only way 'right' and 'wrong' can take on any semblance of objective meaning, is for a plurality of moral agents to come together and agree that they are all bound in common by certain rules.

It is not sufficient for a "single agent" to identify the distinction between right and wrong, for the obvious reason that if the distinction is wholly dependent upon his interpretation (subjectivism) of these terms, he can at any point change his mind about what is "right" and what is "wrong." All we get, with a lone arbiter of the content of right and wrong, is not "objective morality" but instead nihilism, pure and simple.

I have had people try this silly argument on me before....I can guarantee you that you will lose this one.....your error is failing to recognize that it is our action which causes the knowledge, not the knowledge which causes our action....

Let me try to put this in terms you can understand. If God is infinite, if God's knowledge is infinite, his knowledge is determinitative of all events. God is the plenary reality; all other things that exist, have reality in a derivative, and less full sense, than the reality of God. If God's perspective sees the entire history of the universe at once, as it were, this shows that our experience of time, and in particular of the existence of an open future, is an illousion. The way time really is - the way it is from God's perspective - is that it is all already over. If our experience of linear time is fundamentally an illousion (because that is not the structure of time from God's perspective, which is after all the perspective of ulitmate truth), then so is any "open future" in which we can choose. History is like a book, all finished, all completed. From God's point of view, this book has been completed from all eternity. We, the characters in the middle of the book somewhere, don't know what our fate will be; but the end is already written.

Still waiting for you to justify your beliefs. Not that you're going to bother to try. You've lost too many arguments over the years to atheists. Eventually even you have learned.

Noir

01-31-2010, 04:45 AM

well let me put it in perspective.....you can't accept the concept of a deity because you don't believe in miracles.....you don't believe in miracles because you don't believe in a deity.....NOW can I insult your logic?.....

As aspose to you...you do believe in miracles...but only if they are performed by your chosen God, I assume you do not beleive in the miracles of the Buddha? Or what about those of Allah? And so forth. You are left in the totally rediculious situation of trying to say that I'm a fool for not believing in miracles, and then suggesting that only the miracles that were granted by your god where real ones =/

Missileman

01-31-2010, 10:18 AM

As aspose to you...you do believe in miracles...but only if they are performed by your chosen God, I assume you do not beleive in the miracles of the Buddha? Or what about those of Allah? And so forth. You are left in the totally rediculious situation of trying to say that I'm a fool for not believing in miracles, and then suggesting that only the miracles that were granted by your god where real ones =/

It's even more blatant than that. He's arguing that disbelief in Santa Claus can be achieved through reason, disbelief in the Tooth Fairy can be achieved through reason, disbelief in Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, and every other deity ever conceived of by man can be achieved through reason, BUT disbelief in HIS deity is a product of illogic. The stupidity and/or dishonesty it takes to make that argument is why I put the jackass on ignore.

PostmodernProphet

01-31-2010, 10:48 AM

It is a species of lie, when you pass over in silence what is a clear logical implication of each of those definitions you cited. That implication is that "a" god is a particular individual entity, and moreover is one that, as an intelligent moral agent, counts as a personality. Clearly implied by each of the definitions you cited, is that the atheist denies the existence of such personal divinities. When the inference is clear, and you deny it, that is a form of a lie, yes.

so to make this clear....you make up something that you "imply" is in the definition....then accuse me and every dictionary in the world of lying because we don't include your implication?.....

Yep, you're copping out - right on schedule.

classic....you've been avoiding what you need to do for a half dozen pages and you claim that I'M copping out.....

How not? You can insist Mr. Snuffeluppagus exists, and is not merely the product of your imaginings. If you do not give me some evidence that he exists, I am entirely at my leave to conclude that he does not.
and there is your error.....you think it's a conclusion.....you are entirely at your leave to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE whatever you want....that is called a faith choice.....but it is not a CONCLUSION.....if you are prepared to admit it's a faith choice then this debate will have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.....if you continue to pretend it is the result of a rational process you remain irrational.....

You simply don't grasp that the burden of proof is on you.
because it isn't....

You should study more cosmology, less apology. The known universe - known, because we are able to directly observe it - is of finite age. That does not mean that there were not earlier epochs of the cosmos. Logic, in fact, requires that there be (for it is inconceivable that time is not everlasting), and the First Law of Thermodynamics explicitly recognizes it.
lol.....so you exchange one metaphysical explanation for origin with another and pretend it is logical.....that is sad, Perc, really sad.....

PostmodernProphet

01-31-2010, 10:56 AM

"Infinite" comes to Latin from the Greek term "the unbounded." What is infinite has no limits, no boundaries. Where there are no boundaries, there is inclusion. Where there is inclusion, there is the part-to-whole relationship. By logic, if God is infinite we are part of God. If we finally add the point that God is the plenary reality, the ultimately real, what fundamentally exists, all other existence is entailed in this infinite being - for there is no other place it could be. Monotheism ultimately collapses into pantheism, by logic.
this is nothing more than a form of solipsism.....you cannot imagine something which violates your assumptions about reality, so you assume it does not exist.....that is fine as a statement of belief, but it is an error to apply the term "logic" to it....

By the very meaning of the term "law," there can be no law, if it is identified with the will of a single agent. The very meaning of law, is that it serves as a rule which stands independently of any given moral actor. But there are no rules if the rules are simply the pleasure of an autocrat seated in the stars. A rule that could change at the whim of an autocrat, is not a rule.
and if that law never changes on a whim why is it not a law?....

It is not sufficient for a "single agent" to identify the distinction between right and wrong, for the obvious reason that if the distinction is wholly dependent upon his interpretation (subjectivism) of these terms, he can at any point change his mind about what is "right" and what is "wrong." All we get, with a lone arbiter of the content of right and wrong, is not "objective morality" but instead nihilism, pure and simple.
wrong....if a single agent establishes the law, then that law is, by definition, "right" and any action in contradiction to that law is, by definition, "wrong".....

PostmodernProphet

01-31-2010, 11:02 AM

Let me try to put this in terms you can understand. If God is infinite, if God's knowledge is infinite, his knowledge is determinitative of all events.

that is your first error.....his knowledge is not determinative, because we do not share his knowledge.....he knows what we CHOOSE to do, we do not choose to do it BECAUSE he knows it....

God is the plenary reality; all other things that exist, have reality in a derivative, and less full sense, than the reality of God. If God's perspective sees the entire history of the universe at once, as it were, this shows that our experience of time, and in particular of the existence of an open future, is an illousion. The way time really is - the way it is from God's perspective - is that it is all already over. If our experience of linear time is fundamentally an illousion (because that is not the structure of time from God's perspective, which is after all the perspective of ulitmate truth), then so is any "open future" in which we can choose.

your second error is pretending that since God is not bound by linear time, we also are not.....linear time is not an illusion, it is our reality.....

History is like a book, all finished, all completed. From God's point of view, this book has been completed from all eternity. We, the characters in the middle of the book somewhere, don't know what our fate will be; but the end is already written.
but we do not share God's point of view.....our history is not completed, it remains for us to act, in the manner of our choosing, to reach the next step.....

Still waiting for you to justify your beliefs. Not that you're going to bother to try. You've lost too many arguments over the years to atheists. Eventually even you have learned.
I will justify my beliefs in the same way that you ought, if your retained any honesty....it is my choice to believe, through faith.....your intent not to admit the same is true for you is what dooms you, as every other atheist, to losing this argument

Abbey Marie

01-31-2010, 12:53 PM

It's even more blatant than that. He's arguing that disbelief in Santa Claus can be achieved through reason, disbelief in the Tooth Fairy can be achieved through reason, disbelief in Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, and every other deity ever conceived of by man can be achieved through reason, BUT disbelief in HIS deity is a product of illogic. The stupidity and/or dishonesty it takes to make that argument is why I put the jackass on ignore.

Wait- you put someone on ignore, but then post all about him?

Missileman

01-31-2010, 03:32 PM

Wait- you put someone on ignore, but then post all about him?

In reading Noirs posts I can't help but see the crap being posted by PmP. He is and continues to be on my ignore list. I don't see why that should preclude me from discussing his tripe with another poster when I see it.

chesswarsnow

01-31-2010, 04:47 PM

Sorry bout that,

In reading Noirs posts I can't help but see the crap being posted by PmP. He is and continues to be on my ignore list. I don't see why that should preclude me from discussing his tripe with another poster when I see it.

1. LOL,......pawned, by Abbey..........:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Missileman

01-31-2010, 04:52 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. LOL,......pawned, by Abbey..........:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Only you and your fellow droolers might think so

Pericles

01-31-2010, 11:29 PM

so to make this clear....you make up something that you "imply" is in the definition....

Please show how my claim that the concept of 'a deity' implies that that being is a mind, a personality, is something that I made up. How is that our ordinary concept of a deity does not imply personality? If you can't, then my point stands.

and there is your error.....you think it's a conclusion.....you are entirely at your leave to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE whatever you want....

Stop lying, Protagoras. I am talking about logical inference. If you are denying that I am making a logical inference, by all means produce an argument detailing how I am being illogical. Simply asserting that I have reasoned without evidence, does not advanced your point one inch.

because it isn't....

I have explained, at length, why the burden of proof's on you. If I am wrong, you've got to say how and why. Simply saying "No, it isn't" is no argument at all, and is just pathetic. Make an actual rebuttal, or you've lost.

Pericles

01-31-2010, 11:36 PM

this is nothing more than a form of solipsism.....you cannot imagine something which violates your assumptions about reality, so you assume it does not exist.....that is fine as a statement of belief, but it is an error to apply the term "logic" to it....

Oh no you don't. It's your responsibility now to make an argument that your god exists. I'll reply to your critiques of my arguments once you have supplied the thesis of theism, without which there cannot be the counter-thesis of atheism.

and if that law never changes on a whim why is it not a law?....

Still waiting.

wrong....if a single agent establishes the law, then that law is, by definition, "right" and any action in contradiction to that law is, by definition, "wrong".....

Still waiting...

Pericles

01-31-2010, 11:44 PM

I'll answer your questions, but now the burden of proof's on you. You seem in this post and the last to be quite capable of not relying on pure faith to support your religion; so let's hear your argument for the existence of your god.

that is your first error.....his knowledge is not determinative, because we do not share his knowledge.....he knows what we CHOOSE to do, we do not choose to do it BECAUSE he knows it....

Nope, that's not it.

your second error is pretending that since God is not bound by linear time, we also are not.....linear time is not an illusion, it is our reality.....

You claim to know a lot about the nature of god, but I'm wondering when you're going to get around to giving evidence that the god you're talking about isn't confined to the space between your ears.

but we do not share God's point of view.....our history is not completed, it remains for us to act, in the manner of our choosing, to reach the next step.....

Still waiting.

I will justify my beliefs in the same way that you ought, if your retained any honesty....it is my choice to believe, through faith.....your intent not to admit the same is true for you is what dooms you, as every other atheist, to losing this argument

Still waiting. Your belief is based on the flip of a coin. It's a purely arbitrary commitment, apparently. I guess you take your beliefs about as seriously as I take them.

You've forfeit, Protagoras.

Mr. P

01-31-2010, 11:54 PM

While you wait Pericles, what's you view on Joesph Campbells work?

Somehow I think your familiar with it..

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:02 AM

As aspose to you...you do believe in miracles...but only if they are performed by your chosen God, I assume you do not beleive in the miracles of the Buddha? Or what about those of Allah? And so forth. You are left in the totally rediculious situation of trying to say that I'm a fool for not believing in miracles, and then suggesting that only the miracles that were granted by your god where real ones =/

more swooshing.....why are you ignoring the fact your argument is circular?....

as for other miracles, it is simply a choice of what I place my faith in.....certainly you don't find that contradictory to my arguments, do you?.....

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:03 AM

Wait- you put someone on ignore, but then post all about him?
he has me on ignore because losing all his arguments was getting embarrassing for him....

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:08 AM

Please show how my claim that the concept of 'a deity' implies that that being is a mind, a personality, is something that I made up. How is that our ordinary concept of a deity does not imply personality? If you can't, then my point stands.

because it simply doesn't exist as a requirement in any other definition....you yourself said it was "implied"....but you are the one implying it....

Stop lying, Protagoras. I am talking about logical inference. If you are denying that I am making a logical inference, by all means produce an argument detailing how I am being illogical. Simply asserting that I have reasoned without evidence, does not advanced your point one inch.

an argument detailing how you are being illogical?.....by stating God does not exist without evidence being available to support that conclusion you have formed a belief in the absence of evidence.....that is called faith.....yet you deny you act upon faith and pretend that you have come to a logical conclusion.....that is clearly illogical.....

I have explained, at length, why the burden of proof's on you. If I am wrong, you've got to say how and why. Simply saying "No, it isn't" is no argument at all, and is just pathetic. Make an actual rebuttal, or you've lost.
you have claimed it, but you have provided nothing to support that claim....there is no logical basis upon which you can say "I have reached a logical conclusion because of the absence of a contradictory argument"......that is not a logical basis....

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:11 AM

Oh no you don't. It's your responsibility now to make an argument that your god exists. I'll reply to your critiques of my arguments once you have supplied the thesis of theism, without which there cannot be the counter-thesis of atheism.

the fuck it is.....I'm not the one denying I have made a faith commitment.....you're the only one who's assumed a responsibility for proving anything.....and that responsibility will go away as soon as you are honest enough to admit that your choice is based upon faith....

Still waiting.

Still waiting...
so in other words, you haven't got a clue how to provide support for your claims?....odd, since they supposedly form the basis for your "logical" conclusions about deity......is this a concession then?....

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
that is your first error.....his knowledge is not determinative, because we do not share his knowledge.....he knows what we CHOOSE to do, we do not choose to do it BECAUSE he knows it....
Perky:Nope, that's not it.
since this is the closest you came to responding to a point let's explore it further.....tell me HOW God's knowledge compels our actions when we have no information about what God knows?....

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 12:28 AM

I assume you do not beleive in the miracles of the Buddha?

if I hear of a miracle of Buddha should I not assume they are false?....

When the Buddha was once living at Nalanda in the Pavarika Grove, a man by the name of Kevaddha went up to him, paid homage, and said, "Lord, Nalanda is a successful city. The people living in Nalanda are prosperous, and they have confidence in the Blessed One. Lord, it would be good if the Blessed One appointed a monk to work a marvel of supernormal power, so that the people of Nalanda might become much more confident in the Blessed One."

The Buddha replied, "Kevaddha, I do not teach the Law to bhikkhus in that way." The Buddha gave the same reply when the question was put to him the second and third time. After the third question, the Buddha replied that there were three kinds of supernormal levels:

1. The marvel of supernormal power to appear as many persons, to pass through walls, to fly through the air, walk on water. All these are physical actions the ordinary people cannot perform.
2. The supernormal power to read other people's minds.
3. The supernormal power to be able to guide people according to their mental development, for their own good, using suitable methods to fit these people.

The first two supernormal powers, if displayed for their own sake in order to impress people, are no different from the performance of magicians. A monk who practices such worldly miracles is a source of shame, humiliation and disgust. Such actions may impress and win converts and followers, but they do not bring enlightenment to help them put an end to suffering.

The third kind of supernormal power, though, which may be called a "miracle", helps people to get rid of suffering. This is the only supernormal power that is fit to be practiced.http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_26lbud.htm

Pericles

02-01-2010, 01:38 AM

because it simply doesn't exist as a requirement in any other definition....you yourself said it was "implied"....but you are the one implying it....

Can you give me an example of a deity, a divinity, that is not a mind? The concept of 'person,' is implied by, in the sense of belongs to, the concept of 'a deity.' If you have any intellectual honesty, you'll admit this. But if you persist in denying it, it's incumbent on you to show how my inference is incorrect. Should be easy for you, if this inference is simply something I made up. So, come on. Quit with the empty assertions and testify.

an argument detailing how you are being illogical?.....by stating God does not exist without evidence being available to support that conclusion

More lies. I've already given a sketch of why the very concept of deity in monotheism, is illogical. You are the one who persists in claiming that "the Christian God exists" is true, without being able to support that conclusion.

you have formed a belief in the absence of evidence....

You are the one who has the incumbent obligation to show that this being whose existence I cannot detect, is in fact there.

that is called faith.....yet you deny you act upon faith and pretend that you have come to a logical conclusion.....that is clearly illogical.....

It's really tiresome having to educate you like this. Atheism is not a faith; it does not pro-pose anything, it does not assert the existence of anything. Rather, it is the thesis that the claims of religion are not supported by logic or experience, and are therefore false.

there is no logical basis upon which you can say "I have reached a logical conclusion because of the absence of a contradictory argument"......that is not a logical basis....

Your ignorance of the protocols of disputation, does not change the fact that your position is thoroughly illogical. You are the one making the novel proposition "God exists." If you don't make this assertion, then we don't have a disagreement. But you do make it; and the atheist responds, "How do you know?" If, like Protagoras before Socrates, you refuse to supply evidence for your proposition, then I am at leave to disregard it. That's logic. Open and shut.

Pericles

02-01-2010, 01:45 AM

the fuck it is.....I'm not the one denying I have made a faith commitment.....you're the only one who's assumed a responsibility for proving anything.....and that responsibility will go away as soon as you are honest enough to admit that your choice is based upon faith....

Your faith is not a matter of purely personal significance for you. You believe that your preferred supernatural objects are as real for me, or anyone else, as they are for you. You can't be coming with that kind of claim, without being able to back it up. If you can't back it up, others are completely at liberty to disregard your faith as nothing but a delusion.

so in other words, you haven't got a clue how to provide support for your claims?....odd, since they supposedly form the basis for your "logical" conclusions about deity......is this a concession then?....

Stop stalling.

Pericles

02-01-2010, 01:57 AM

While you wait Pericles, what's you view on Joesph Campbells work?

Somehow I think your familiar with it..

Well... Campbell engages in some immensely suggestive speculations about the sort of collective-unconscious mythic structures that he identifies across cultures and societies... but in the end it strikes me as too speculative to take really seriously. It concerns me that some people think that his theories are the gospel truth.

As an ardent Star Wars fan, though, I will say that we owe Campbell a lasting debt for the contributions his theories made to the plot-arc of episodes IV-VI...

Mr. P

02-01-2010, 12:42 PM

Well... Campbell engages in some immensely suggestive speculations about the sort of collective-unconscious mythic structures that he identifies across cultures and societies... but in the end it strikes me as too speculative to take really seriously. It concerns me that some people think that his theories are the gospel truth.

As an ardent Star Wars fan, though, I will say that we owe Campbell a lasting debt for the contributions his theories made to the plot-arc of episodes IV-VI...

unconscious mythic structures? I haven't run across that. Most of what I've seen him present have been historically verifiable myth. But then I'm not familiar with all of his work.

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 02:58 PM

Can you give me an example of a deity, a divinity, that is not a mind?

???....it would be impossible for me to give you an example of one that WAS....

More lies. I've already given a sketch of why the very concept of deity in monotheism, is illogical.

and I have shown that each of your steps are in error.....you refuse to even respond to a single point....

You are the one who persists in claiming that "the Christian God exists" is true, without being able to support that conclusion.
dude, do have any comprehension of what this debate is about....do you understand the difference between a faith choice and a logical conclusion?.....so long as you insist your position is a logical conclusion you retain the obligation of proving it to be so......one does not "prove" a faith choice.....if you are prepared to admit that you operate on faith you will no longer have an obligation to provide proof as well....

You are the one who has the incumbent obligation to show that this being whose existence I cannot detect, is in fact there.

sorry, but no...I am not obligated to prove what you claim to be a logical conclusion....you are.....

It's really tiresome having to educate you like this. Atheism is not a faith; it does not pro-pose anything, it does not assert the existence of anything. Rather, it is the thesis that the claims of religion are not supported by logic or experience, and are therefore false.

then quit wasting our time and provide proof of your thesis...

Noir

02-01-2010, 03:11 PM

if I hear of a miracle of Buddha should I not assume they are false?....

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_26lbud.htm

I've read that a few times and have no idea what its getting at lol,

All i was saying is that you accept that miracles can happen...and then have to limit yourself to the belief that only miracles that involve your god are real, any that have come from the countless thousands of other gods in human history must be untrue...

PostmodernProphet

02-01-2010, 03:57 PM

I've read that a few times and have no idea what its getting at lol,

All i was saying is that you accept that miracles can happen...and then have to limit yourself to the belief that only miracles that involve your god are real, any that have come from the countless thousands of other gods in human history must be untrue...
yes, that is what faith choices are about.....distinguishing between that which you accept and that which you reject.....does the concept puzzle you?......this may surprise you but it is even possible to choose not to accept miracles which are said to involve my god.....for example, I put no credence in the grilled cheese Mary.......

Noir

02-01-2010, 09:39 PM

yes, that is what faith choices are about.....distinguishing between that which you accept and that which you reject.....does the concept puzzle you?......this may surprise you but it is even possible to choose not to accept miracles which are said to involve my god.....for example, I put no credence in the grilled cheese Mary.......

And yet you do put credence in fairy tales dreamt up thousands of years ago in the middle east =/ but only some of them ofcourse, the others are just pure non-sense, right?
On some level you must have some sort of rational for choosing one miracle over another, and yet, there can be none =/

Pericles

02-02-2010, 01:04 AM

unconscious mythic structures? I haven't run across that. Most of what I've seen him present have been historically verifiable myth. But then I'm not familiar with all of his work.

Well - you know, collective unconscious, after the cardinal thesis of Karl Jung (under whom Campbell studied). At the heart of Campbell's writings is the idea that in myth after myth, found all around the world and in places that could not have had contact with one another, the same basic set of stories gets replayed, with local variations, again and again. Because the diverse cultures of pre-historic times could not have been in contact with one another, the common narrative structure of their mythic tales must reveal some deep truths about the human condition, and about human nature.

The degree of commonality, in the absence of contact, is what prompts us to speak of this similarity between mythic tales, as "unconcious."

I'm not (necessarily) disputing the particulars of the myths he recounts; but I do have my doubts that they are so similar in plot and in narrative detail as he claims...

Pericles

02-02-2010, 01:30 AM

???....it would be impossible for me to give you an example of one that WAS....

Oh - so here you're admitting that what you believe, is something confined wholly to your imagination? Very well, I graciously accept your concession. The belief in the Christian God, we both can agree then, has no basis in fact.

and I have shown that each of your steps are in error.....you refuse to even respond to a single point....

You have "shown" nothing. You have given me no reason to believe that you have been talking about anything other than a figment of you imagination.

dude, do have any comprehension of what this debate is about....do you understand the difference between a faith choice and a logical conclusion?.....so long as you insist your position is a logical conclusion you retain the obligation of proving it to be so....

I can put forward many reductio proofs of God's non-existence. But, you still seem unable to grasp, that the thesis of the denial of the existence of any gods, is predicated upon someone else first claiming that gods do in fact exist. If no one is claiming that that is a fact, then there is no argument. Up above you explicitly disavowed that the existence of God is factual. Hence our argument is over.

..one does not "prove" a faith choice....

True enough. You do not need evidence, in order to believe something. But you do need evidence, if you don't want to be laughed at.

.if you are prepared to admit that you operate on faith you will no longer have an obligation to provide proof as well....

There is no prima facie evidence that there exist any gods, in the first place... so, I am under no obligation to prove that there are none. Still, once presented with the thesis of theism, then I am under that obligation. But the initial burden of proof lies with you, no matter how much you squirm.

Pericles

02-02-2010, 01:53 AM

???....it would be impossible for me to give you an example of one that WAS....

Oh - so you admit what you believe, is something confined wholly to your imagination? Very well, I graciously accept your concession. The belief in the Christian God, we both can agree then, has no basis in fact.

and I have shown that each of your steps are in error.....you refuse to even respond to a single point....

You have "shown" nothing. You have given me no reason to believe that you have been talking about anything other than a figment of you imagination.

dude, do have any comprehension of what this debate is about....do you understand the difference between a faith choice and a logical conclusion?.....so long as you insist your position is a logical conclusion you retain the obligation of proving it to be so....

I can put forward many reductio proofs of God's non-existence. But, you still seem unable to grasp, that the thesis of the denial of the existence of any gods, is predicated upon someone else first claiming that gods do in fact exist. If no one is claiming that that is a fact, then there is no argument. Up above you explicitly disavowed that the existence of God is factual. Hence our argument is over.

..one does not "prove" a faith choice....

True enough. You do not need evidence, in order to believe something. But you do need evidence, if you don't want to be laughed at.

.if you are prepared to admit that you operate on faith you will no longer have an obligation to provide proof as well....

There is no prima facie evidence that there exist any gods, in the first place... so, I am under no obligation to prove that there are none. Still, once presented with the thesis of theism, then I am under that obligation. But the initial burden of proof lies with you, no matter how much you squirm.

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 08:38 AM

And yet you do put credence in fairy tales dreamt up thousands of years ago in the middle east =/ but only some of them ofcourse, the others are just pure non-sense, right?
On some level you must have some sort of rational for choosing one miracle over another, and yet, there can be none =/

I find some modern fairy tales lack credibility as well....."Life began when DNA spontaneously erupted amongst some amino acids"........"transpecies evolution"......the earth is what it is and where it is due to random chance.....

Noir

02-02-2010, 08:46 AM

I find some modern fairy tales lack credibility as well....."Life began when DNA spontaneously erupted amongst some amino acids"........"transpecies evolution"......the earth is what it is and where it is due to random chance.....

Ah yes...and how do you yourself answer the question of how the complexities of the earth came into being? How DNA derived from amino acids, and how transpecies evolution took place?...ah yes, it was all the plan of an infinitely more complex deity.

You mock science, by referring to 'fairy tales', because it can not yet answer the most complex questions there are, and yet you content yourself with a complete non-answer. =/

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 08:47 AM

Oh - so here you're admitting that what you believe, is something confined wholly to your imagination? Very well, I graciously accept your concession. The belief in the Christian God, we both can agree then, has no basis in fact.

lol, middle school debate tactics....what you missed in what I posted is that your attempt to limit deity to human characteristics is meaningless....you pretend that you have to oppose "personal" deities to be an atheist.....I assume then that you believe animists are atheists, pantheists are atheists?.....when are you going to admit what atheism actually is?......

You have "shown" nothing. You have given me no reason to believe that you have been talking about anything other than a figment of you imagination.

I responded specifically to each of the points you raised.....that's what debate usually involves.....you left the debate at that point and specifically said you did not intend to continue.....

I can put forward many reductio proofs of God's non-existence.
I'm sorry but no, you can't....and you won't.....you can't even defend the lame arguments you've raised already.....what makes you think you can accomplish something no atheist has ever accomplished since the year 1?.....

But, you still seem unable to grasp, that the thesis of the denial of the existence of any gods, is predicated upon someone else first claiming that gods do in fact exist.
there is no reason to grasp it....it isn't true....

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 08:51 AM

You mock science, by referring to 'fairy tales', because it can not yet answer the most complex questions there are, and yet you content yourself with a complete non-answer. =/

????....I have not mocked science....I have mocked you......you admit that science has not yet provided the answer, yet somehow you think my "non-answer" is inferior to your "non-answer"......

like Perky says "But you do need evidence, if you don't want to be laughed at."

Noir

02-02-2010, 09:03 AM

????....I have not mocked science....I have mocked you......you admit that science has not yet provided the answer, yet somehow you think my "non-answer" is inferior to your "non-answer"......

like Perky says "But you do need evidence, if you don't want to be laughed at."

That is because there is a massive difference between my non-answer and your non-answer.

My non-answer shows humility, and as we know we do not have the answers science will keep working until it does have the answers.

Your non-answer shows arrogance, you already 'know' the answer, religion tells you to just be happy with what you are told, and not question further.

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 10:39 AM

That is because there is a massive difference between my non-answer and your non-answer.

My non-answer shows humility, and as we know we do not have the answers science will keep working until it does have the answers.

Your non-answer shows arrogance, you already 'know' the answer, religion tells you to just be happy with what you are told, and not question further.

lol....so your non answer is more logical because your heart is purer.....ah, I love how science works.....

Noir

02-02-2010, 10:48 AM

lol....so your non answer is more logical because your heart is purer.....ah, I love how science works.....

Who said anything about hearts being pure?

My non-answer knows that there is not currently an answer.

Your non-answer 'knows' it is the answer.

Pericles

02-02-2010, 11:25 AM

lol, middle school debate tactics....what you missed in what I posted is that your attempt to limit deity to human characteristics is meaningless...

"Limit deity to human characteristics" - do you mean by this that the deity you believe in, is not a personal god, is not related to us in a personal manner? Because it is the belief that a deity is an intelligent agent, and endowed with various infinite faculties and attributes which afford it magical powers, that can be proven by logic to be false.

you pretend that you have to oppose "personal" deities to be an atheist.....I assume then that you believe animists are atheists, pantheists are atheists?.....when are you going to admit what atheism actually is?......

Fundamentally, atheism is logic. Logic denies any reality to magic. Logic maintains the impossibility of the conjunction of a personality (which is by definition a finite phenomenon) with any manner of infinite attributes (like knowledge, power, love, etc.). Atheism denies any reality to animism. Pantheism atheists tend to be indifferent about, since as a belief it seems to have no impact whatsoever, in one direction or another, on our understanding of the world.

I responded specifically to each of the points you raised.....that's what debate usually involves.....you left the debate at that point and specifically said you did not intend to continue.....

I have repeatedly asked for the evidence that the god you belief in is real and not a figment of your imagination. This above all you have studiously avoided telling to me. As a courtesy, I gave you a precis of the logical arguments against theism. But it is past time for you to make your positive case. I am still waiting.

I'm sorry but no, you can't....and you won't.....you can't even defend the lame arguments you've raised already.....what makes you think you can accomplish something no atheist has ever accomplished since the year 1?.....

On the contrary, the objections I have raised go back centuries, and have never been satisfactorily answered by theologians.

here is no reason to grasp it....it isn't true....

First of all, you keep saying that it isn't true that the burden of proof for the claim of a god's existence is on the one making the claim - but you offer no reason in support of why the burden of proof is not on you. You merely keep repeating that empty assertion. I, on the other hand, have explained in many places why you have the incumbent obligation to produce evidence for the truth of your beliefs.

Your obligation in this debate, then, is to either finally a) give proofs that the god you believe in actually exists or b) produce a logical argument showing why the burden of proof is on me.

In all our long discussion, you have squirmed this way and that, trying to avoid having to make a logical defense of your beliefs. And you have tried, in fact, to make a virtue out of your intellectual bankruptcy, by claiming that my beliefs are just as based in empty fiat-assertions, as yours are. But I have seen through you from the beginning. In every post you evade and lie. Typical for a believer who has been caught in his contradictions.

Give me a reason why I should continue with you. Or forfeit.

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 02:46 PM

Who said anything about hearts being pure?

My non-answer knows that there is not currently an answer.

Your non-answer 'knows' it is the answer.

you're humble, I'm arrogant....perhaps not "pure" but certainly you claim to be better....

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 02:58 PM

"Limit deity to human characteristics" - do you mean by this that the deity you believe in, is not a personal god, is not related to us in a personal manner? Because it is the belief that a deity is an intelligent agent, and endowed with various infinite faculties and attributes which afford it magical powers, that can be proven by logic to be false.

my comment about human characteristics was a direct response to your question about a deity having a "mind"....the very fact that a deity has infinite faculties and attributes means that it is not a "person"....further, you cannot prove the concept false by logic, anymore than you've been able to prove anything else by logic in this thread.....

Fundamentally, atheism is logic. Logic denies any reality to magic. Logic maintains the impossibility of the conjunction of a personality (which is by definition a finite phenomenon) with any manner of infinite attributes (like knowledge, power, love, etc.). Atheism denies any reality to animism. Pantheism atheists tend to be indifferent about, since as a belief it seems to have no impact whatsoever, in one direction or another, on our understanding of the world.

as we have already seen, atheism is fundamentally illogical....as for the rest of your post you've just accomplished a disproof of your earlier claim that every one who does not believe in a personal god is an atheist....thanks......

I have repeatedly asked for the evidence that the god you belief in is real and not a figment of your imagination. This above all you have studiously avoided telling to me. As a courtesy, I gave you a precis of the logical arguments against theism. But it is past time for you to make your positive case. I am still waiting.

as I have already said, you have failed to do what you have committed to do.....you have not responded to a single criticism I have raised to your argument.....

On the contrary, the objections I have raised go back centuries, and have never been satisfactorily answered by theologians.
odd then that you have been unable to defend even one of them against the criticisms I cited....you've done no better than all the other illogical atheists....

First of all, you keep saying that it isn't true that the burden of proof for the claim of a god's existence is on the one making the claim - but you offer no reason in support of why the burden of proof is not on you.
sure I have....it's because I am willing to acknowledge it is a faith choice and not a logical argument....a faith choice is one made in the absence of evidence, why then would you expect me to provide evidence....

You merely keep repeating that empty assertion. I, on the other hand, have explained in many places why you have the incumbent obligation to produce evidence for the truth of your beliefs.
yes, you have been quite consistent in that error...

Your obligation in this debate, then, is to either finally a) give proofs that the god you believe in actually exists or b) produce a logical argument showing why the burden of proof is on me.
it's b) then, which I have done...the burden of proof is on you because you insist your position is a logical conclusion....it is incumbent on you to therefore provide a sustainable logical argument....

In all our long discussion, you have squirmed this way and that, trying to avoid having to make a logical defense of your beliefs. And you have tried, in fact, to make a virtue out of your intellectual bankruptcy, by claiming that my beliefs are just as based in empty fiat-assertions, as yours are.
oh not at all....I believe your position is far inferior to mine....

Give me a reason why I should continue with you. Or forfeit.
oh certainly my advice would be that you forfeit......but, I would be interested in seeing you actually try to defend the claims you made earlier.....abusing you is fun.....

Noir

02-02-2010, 03:35 PM

you're humble, I'm arrogant....perhaps not "pure" but certainly you claim to be better....

Yeah i think the word pure has be completly mis-used there, and in no way relates to what i was saying.

But let me ask, 2 quick questions....

i) Do you think it is humble to say that you do not know everything?

ii) Do you think it is arrogant to say that you know everything?

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 09:14 PM

Yeah i think the word pure has be completly mis-used there, and in no way relates to what i was saying.

But let me ask, 2 quick questions....

i) Do you think it is humble to say that you do not know everything?

ii) Do you think it is arrogant to say that you know everything?

of course to both.....also, I don't recall ever saying I knew everything...

now, do you think it is foolish to say you believe something if you actually doubt it is true?......

Noir

02-02-2010, 10:13 PM

of course to both.....

Okay :)

also, I don't recall ever saying I knew everything...

No, but you have put your faith in religion, and religion says it knows all the answers, in this regard religion is arrogance, and you support this arrogant system by being a part of it.

now, do you think it is foolish to say you believe something if you actually doubt it is true?......

That would be very foolish indeedy, so you say you believe your religion to be true....and assuming that you are not a fool (an assumption i'm quite happy to make) then you believe in a religion that 'knows' all the answers. You believe in its arrogance. Does that not in some why reflect on you?

I, on the other hand, believe that science will give use the answers given time, heck, just think about what he didn't know 50 years ago, and what we will know in 50 years time. Thus i am both not a fool, or arrogant, but instead rather humble and proud of it.

PostmodernProphet

02-02-2010, 11:29 PM

No, but you have put your faith in religion, and religion says it knows all the answers, in this regard religion is arrogance, and you support this arrogant system by being a part of it.

/yawn.....nobody holds a candle to atheists when it comes to arrogance....they're even arrogant when they claim to be more humble....

That would be very foolish indeedy, so you say you believe your religion to be true....and assuming that you are not a fool (an assumption i'm quite happy to make) then you believe in a religion that 'knows' all the answers. You believe in its arrogance. Does that not in some why reflect on you?

your error is characterizing religion as saying it "knows" all the answers....we don't claim to know everything, we just claim you are wrong and we are right.....it isn't that we know everything....it's just that you know less than we do.....:poke:

I, on the other hand, believe that science will give use the answers given time, heck, just think about what he didn't know 50 years ago, and what we will know in 50 years time. Thus i am both not a fool, or arrogant, but instead rather humble and proud of it.
/shrugs....I'm 58....I expect God will give me all the answers sometime in the next twenty or thirty years....if he's not there, I expect that will be an answer as well....

Pericles

02-02-2010, 11:38 PM

my comment about human characteristics was a direct response to your question about a deity having a "mind"....the very fact that a deity has infinite faculties and attributes means that it is not a "person"...

Well! That certainly is heterodox. So much for the three persons of the trinity. So much for us having a personal relationship with God. Are you sure you're a Christian?

further, you cannot prove the concept false by logic, anymore than you've been able to prove anything else by logic in this thread.....

The logical conundrums I have raised concerning monotheism, again have never been satisfactorily answered by theologians. Those arguments, especially when taken cumulatively, amount to a reductio argument against God's existence.

as we have already seen, atheism is fundamentally illogical...

Seen how? You won't even defend your core thesis - so how can you claim that atheism, which is only a denial of this thesis, is illogical?

as for the rest of your post you've just accomplished a disproof of your earlier claim that every one who does not believe in a personal god is an atheist....thanks......

Ain't too quick with the logic, are ya? Disbelief in a personal god is a requirement of atheism, of course. But it is not the only requirement. In that last post I mentioned another, very important one - the disbelief in magic and miracles. This second criterion rules out animism. Nice try, but you lose the point. Again.

as I have already said, you have failed to do what you have committed to do.....you have not responded to a single criticism I have raised to your argument.....

I have made it clear that I'll make no further move to develop the atheist thesis, until you do what is required of you in the first place, that you may be able to claim that your beliefs are true beliefs (and not just delusion): Give reasons why your supposed god exists, and why your supposed god has the nature that you claim it does. You refuse to do this; so you lose the argument.

odd then that you have been unable to defend even one of them against the criticisms I cited....you've done no better than all the other illogical atheists....

I'll defend them when it's my turn. Right now, it's your turn to defend your thesis.

sure I have....it's because I am willing to acknowledge it is a faith choice and not a logical argument....a faith choice is one made in the absence of evidence, why then would you expect me to provide evidence....

It's a faith choice, if you are saying that your belief is relevant only for you. But once you claim that your beliefs are true for me and for everybody else, then you have the responsibility to give reasons why.

it's b) then, which I have done...

Hah! You are SUCH a liar, PMP. What, think you're gonna jedi mind-trick me, by constantly saying the opposite of the truth??

the burden of proof is on you because you insist your position is a logical conclusion....it is incumbent on you to therefore provide a sustainable logical argument....

The burden is on me to show how the thesis of theism is illogical - but only after a logical defense of the thesis has been put forward. Again - there can be no a - theism without theism.

I think I've had enough of you, PostmodernProphet. I only bother debating about this with people who actually want to debate. I'll invite other people to look at this thread, and they can decide for themselves, who won and who lost.

Noir

02-02-2010, 11:51 PM

/yawn.....nobody holds a candle to atheists when it comes to arrogance....they're even arrogant when they claim to be more humble....

There you are, calling me arrogant, can you please tell me what i am arrogant about?

your error is characterizing religion as saying it "knows" all the answers....we don't claim to know everything, we just claim you are wrong and we are right.....it isn't that we know everything....it's just that you know less than we do.....:poke:

Ah, how interesting, so what can religion not answer?
I mean it 'knows' how there world came into being, what happens when we die, and so forth, what does it not claim to know?

/shrugs....I'm 58....I expect God will give me all the answers sometime in the next twenty or thirty years....if he's not there, I expect that will be an answer as well....

Indeedy, well we can always meet in the cafe underworld to discuss how we got it so wrong about Hades over a hot chocolate :3

PostmodernProphet

02-03-2010, 07:37 AM

Well! That certainly is heterodox. So much for the three persons of the trinity. So much for us having a personal relationship with God. Are you sure you're a Christian?

you have trouble remembering your own arguments, don't you......your claim wasn't that Christians believe in a personal God, or even that we personify deity......your claim was that everyone who doesn't believe in a personal deity was an atheist....then you foolishly weakened your position further by limiting that to believing that deities had "minds"......

The logical conundrums I have raised concerning monotheism, again have never been satisfactorily answered by theologians.
I'm not an accomplished theologian and I managed to drop you in your tracks with my first post......you've been speechless on the issue ever since...

I have made it clear that I'll make no further move to develop the atheist thesis, until you do what is required of you in the first place
we all know that's just an excuse to avoid failing.....I can't blame you though, what you have set out to do is of course impossible.....it's perfectly logical for you to run away from it......what isn't logical was for you to make the claim in the first place.....

I'll defend them when it's my turn.
no you won't....you'll run forever....atheists always do.....they never finish this part of the argument

It's a faith choice, if you are saying that your belief is relevant only for you. But once you claim that your beliefs are true for me and for everybody else, then you have the responsibility to give reasons why.
???....you don't believe that what you say about deities is true for you and me and everyone else?......

The burden is on me to show how the thesis of theism is illogical - but only after a logical defense of the thesis has been put forward. Again - there can be no a - theism without theism.
sorry child....no defaults.....

I think I've had enough of you, PostmodernProphet. I only bother debating about this with people who actually want to debate. I'll invite other people to look at this thread, and they can decide for themselves, who won and who lost.
another loser.....someday I hope to find an atheist with the balls to actually defend his beliefs.....you didn't even make it past the first round of challenges.....I find it consistently true that atheists are never willing to actually debate THEIR beliefs.....they only know how to criticize others.....I can only conclude that atheism is a retreat for those who don't know how to think......

PostmodernProphet

02-03-2010, 07:39 AM

Ah, how interesting, so what can religion not answer?

what's up with that platypus?....

Noir

02-03-2010, 07:52 AM

what's up with that platypus?....

How fantasitc, you say

your error is characterizing religion as saying it "knows" all the answers

And then when asked about what religion does not "know" you can not make a serious suggestion.

Now do you have a real answer or are you going to carry on with this foolishness?

PostmodernProphet

02-03-2010, 09:52 AM

How fantasitc, you say

And then when asked about what religion does not "know" you can not make a serious suggestion.

Now do you have a real answer or are you going to carry on with this foolishness?

answer a fool according to his nature......Proverbs

do you really need me to make a list of serious matters which religion does not or does not even try to, answer?.....things like, "what is the nature of a quark", "why can't atheists think logically", and "is there life on Alpha Centuri?".....

PostmodernProphet

02-04-2010, 08:11 AM

where have all my atheists gone?......

Noir

02-04-2010, 09:14 AM

where have all my atheists gone?......

Worry not Sir, i am still here, sorry if i'm not replying as quickly as you would like

Noir

02-04-2010, 09:20 AM

answer a fool according to his nature......Proverbs

do you really need me to make a list of serious matters which religion does not or does not even try to, answer?.....things like, "what is the nature of a quark", "why can't atheists think logically", and "is there life on Alpha Centuri?".....

Indeedy, but while it does not answer everything as such, it does have the answer to everything, and that answer is God, 'what is the nature of a quark' - It is whatever God intended its nature to be, and so forth, 'is there life on Alpha Centuri' - Only if God wanted there to be ect ect.

PostmodernProphet

02-04-2010, 11:05 AM

Indeedy, but while it does not answer everything as such, it does have the answer to everything, and that answer is God, 'what is the nature of a quark' - It is whatever God intended its nature to be, and so forth, 'is there life on Alpha Centuri' - Only if God wanted there to be ect ect.

ah but that leaves us in an uncomfortable position.....the answer to "why can't atheists think logically" would be "God wants them to think illogically".....and that of course, would be counter-intuitive.......

PostmodernProphet

02-05-2010, 02:26 PM

sigh, it appears Perky has run away.....

Noir

02-06-2010, 05:54 AM

sigh, it appears Perky has run away.....

LOL dude, don't be too quick to jump the gun, i've had alot of IRL stuff to do the past 2 days ergo haven't been online much, but worry not i ain't gonna be doing no 'running away'

Noir

02-06-2010, 06:04 AM

ah but that leaves us in an uncomfortable position.....the answer to "why can't atheists think logically" would be "God wants them to think illogically".....and that of course, would be counter-intuitive.......

Why do you think its illogical to be atheist? After all you are an atheist too, with regards to Thor, Apollo and Xenu.

Do you consider your disbelief in any of those 'Gods' and thousands of others as illogical?

Just because you can not disprove a negative does not mean that not believing in the idea is illogical. In the same why that both of us are afairists, we do not believe there are fairies living at the bottom of our gardens, and yet to think so is surly not illogical, no?

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins 'We both know what its like to the atheists with respect to thousands of Gods, some of us just go one god further.'

PostmodernProphet

02-06-2010, 08:16 AM

LOL dude, don't be too quick to jump the gun, i've had alot of IRL stuff to do the past 2 days ergo haven't been online much, but worry not i ain't gonna be doing no 'running away'
your name isn't Perky.....though no one would accuse you of not being perky.....

Noir

02-06-2010, 08:20 AM

your name isn't Perky.....though no one would accuse you of not being perky.....

Okie pokes, no worries, btw what mean you by your sig?

PostmodernProphet

02-06-2010, 08:29 AM

Why do you think its illogical to be atheist? After all you are an atheist too, with regards to Thor, Apollo and Xenu.

a lot of atheists think that's a clever line.....but it isn't accurate.....I choose not to believe in Thor, Apollo, or Xenu......but, as I have never made the claim that deity does not exist, I have never been an atheist....

I consider atheists to be illogical because they insist that they acquire their beliefs through logical conclusion and refuse to acknowledge that their conclusions are the result of a faith choice, not logic

Do you consider your disbelief in any of those 'Gods' and thousands of others as illogical?
obviously, since my beliefs regarding any deity are made in the absence of evidence, they are faith choices and have nothing to do with logic.....

Just because you can not disprove a negative does not mean that not believing in the idea is illogical. In the same why that both of us are afairists, we do not believe there are fairies living at the bottom of our gardens, and yet to think so is surly not illogical, no?

you may choose to believe anything you want in the absence of evidence.....many choices would be well founded.....but still, it has nothing to do with logic

an argument in logic begins with a premise.....a premise must be founded upon evidence......if it is not, then it is not logic.....

PostmodernProphet

02-06-2010, 08:36 AM

Okie pokes, no worries, btw what mean you by your sig?

:poke:....on another thread I pointed out that your argument was identical to that used by someone posing as a serpent in the Garden of Eden.....I have just been speculating as to whether that someone was also posing as our friendly neighborhood Merryland cookie distributor.....for the rest, it's a reference to Matthew 16:23.......After all, I see you call yourself the Great Tasty One......we are on to you now....

Abbey Marie

02-06-2010, 11:03 AM

:poke:....on another thread I pointed out that your argument was identical to that used by someone posing as a serpent in the Garden of Eden.....I have just been speculating as to whether that someone was also posing as our friendly neighborhood Merryland cookie distributor.....for the rest, it's a reference to Matthew 16:23.......After all, I see you call yourself the Great Tasty One......we are on to you now....

And his chosen name does refer to the dark. Hmm...

PostmodernProphet

02-06-2010, 01:34 PM

And his chosen name does refer to the dark. Hmm...

gasp!....like in "Prince of Noir-ness"?......oh-oh.....

Abbey Marie

02-06-2010, 07:42 PM

gasp!....like in "Prince of Noir-ness"?......oh-oh.....

Eggszachary.

Noir

02-10-2010, 08:48 AM

a lot of atheists think that's a clever line.....but it isn't accurate.....I choose not to believe in Thor, Apollo, or Xenu......but, as I have never made the claim that deity does not exist, I have never been an atheist....

If your do not believe in them then you believe they do not exist,

a⋅the⋅ist
/ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You do not believe (disbelieve) in the existence for Thor, Apollo, Allah, the great Ju-Ju ect ect.... With respect to them you are an atheist.

I consider atheists to be illogical because they insist that they acquire their beliefs through logical conclusion and refuse to acknowledge that their conclusions are the result of a faith choice, not logic

There is nothing faith based in it at all, unless everything in life is faith based. Through scientific modelling we know that if you drop a hammer and a feather that they will hit the ground at the same time, provided there is no wind resistance. Now we tested that when we were on the moon, and things went as expected, but you would not of said before the experiment that the prediction was faith based. It was based on science and understanding.

Atheism just shows the scientific facts, some are blind to these, to such an extent that they believe that the world is only 6000 years old and whatnot, no doubt when science does have all the answers there will still be many who will not accept it. Religion is not only based on faith, but foolishness that dwells within us all.

obviously, since my beliefs regarding any deity are made in the absence of evidence, they are faith choices and have nothing to do with logic.....

Indeedy, but science is not faith based, it is fact based.

you may choose to believe anything you want in the absence of evidence.....many choices would be well founded.....but still, it has nothing to do with logic

an argument in logic begins with a premise.....a premise must be founded upon evidence......if it is not, then it is not logic.....

Logic is reasoning based on facts, just because we do not have all the facts yet does not mean we must explain away events with gods. All through-out history man has used gods to explain what he does not know, and one by one we have proven them all wrong, only two big unknowns remain, the orgin of the Universe and what happens after death,

Noir

02-10-2010, 08:50 AM

PostmodernProphet

02-10-2010, 11:40 AM

If your do not believe in them then you believe they do not exist,

a⋅the⋅ist
/ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You do not believe (disbelieve) in the existence for Thor, Apollo, Allah, the great Ju-Ju ect ect.... With respect to them you are an atheist.

semantics.....the definition of atheist isn't "disbelieves in the existence of a particular supreme being".....it is a disbelief in ANY supreme being....

There is nothing faith based in it at all
then you are prepared to present the evidence that supports your conclusion?....as I recall faith is a belief in the absence of evidence.....thus your belief requires some if it is not faith....

Atheism just shows the scientific facts
good....I look forward to hearing them....

to such an extent that they believe that the world is only 6000 years old
You can do better than that....you know the 6000 issue is irrelevant to the vast majority of Christians....there is nothing in the Bible about 6000 years....

Indeedy, but science is not faith based, it is fact based.
I sense some confusion on your part.....we aren't arguing whether science is fact based.....we are arguing whether the claims of atheism are fact based....the question isn't whether science can explain DNA, the question is whether an atheist can explain "there is no god".....

Logic is reasoning based on facts
of course it is.....but that has nothing to do with what we have been debating.....

PostmodernProphet

02-10-2010, 11:43 AM

Lulz, i am Satan made manifest?
I feel you grossly over-estimate me Sir, but i am somewhat flattered.

Also, i am not the 'great tasty one' the Cookie is the great tasty one, i am merely his follower

so at the very least you admit to being a minion?.......

Microcosmos

02-14-2010, 03:35 PM

Humans are social animals, we cannot survive alone for very long. People from each side of this argument, both atheists and theists, belong to a social group. You will each defend your position to the death to avoid feeling out of place or away from people who understand, accept and support you. I will not say that the question of whether God exists or not is immaterial, because it is not. I am only pointing out that you will continue to ruffle each other's feathers until you can find some common ground. Wars have been fought and continue to be fought relating to this very topic. I'm not trying to go all Rodney King on you ("Can't we all just get along?"), just trying to give my perspective as someone who can see both sides of the argument and see that you both have valid points, but you won't acknowledge each other's points because you are too insecure (as we all are, it is how we survive) to leave the comfort zone of your groups. If you're curious (and okay, well, even if you're not ;) ) I'll tell you: the group I belong to is pretty large and I feel comfortable to speak for it at times. It is the human race, in all of its glory and imperfection. We all can form smaller factions at times and then feel a need to pick at each other, but in the end we are all vital to each others' survival. At least that's how I see it.

PostmodernProphet

02-14-2010, 08:02 PM

I am only pointing out that you will continue to ruffle each other's feathers until you can find some common ground.

will mutual disrespect serve?......

Microcosmos

02-14-2010, 09:19 PM

will mutual disrespect serve?......

It may serve to ignite debate, but it doesn't look like either side is getting anywhere. How about each trying to see things from the others' point of view, walking in their shoes even if only for a minute or two?

Mr. P

02-14-2010, 10:00 PM

It may serve to ignite debate, but it doesn't look like either side is getting anywhere. How about each trying to see things from the others' point of view, walking in their shoes even if only for a minute or two?

But the shoes don't fit. Back to square one.

PostmodernProphet

02-14-2010, 11:42 PM

glockmail

02-16-2010, 08:50 AM

Noir

02-16-2010, 11:35 AM

Screw that get along shit. Its all about bashing the atheists into total submission. :laugh2:

I guess thats why atheism and agnosticism are on the fall, right?

/sark

glockmail

02-16-2010, 04:00 PM

I guess thats why atheism and agnosticism are on the fall, right?

/sarkI don't quest to be popular, only right. :slap:

Noir

02-16-2010, 04:28 PM

I don't quest to be popular, only right. :slap:

And why are you 'right'?
Because of where and when you were born.
Gee, you could almost call that chance :laugh2:
Gotta love the irony, if nothing else.

glockmail

02-16-2010, 04:35 PM

And why are you 'right'?
Because of where and when you were born.
Gee, you could almost call that chance :laugh2:
Gotta love the irony, if nothing else.It has nothing to do with time and space, but logic and reason. :lame2:

Noir

02-16-2010, 04:40 PM

It has nothing to do with time and space, but logic and reason. :lame2:

So if you were to of been born in Nordic Denmark in the eighth century, you would of been able to use logic and reason to follow the Christian God, and not Thor and so forth, or if you were to of been born in Sparta around the 11th century BC you would of used logic and reasoning to follow the Christian god?....

glockmail

02-16-2010, 08:40 PM

So if you were to of been born in Nordic Denmark in the eighth century, you would of been able to use logic and reason to follow the Christian God, and not Thor and so forth, or if you were to of been born in Sparta around the 11th century BC you would of used logic and reasoning to follow the Christian god?....Oh I see where you are going with this; another illogical argument. But I'm talking about myself, born in the 20th century and educated in many religions and scientific principles, and living in a "progressive" era where being anti-religious, as you admitted, is fashionable. So again, I don't care to enter a popularity contest; I'm just happy being logical, reasonable, and right. :D

Noir

02-16-2010, 08:44 PM

Oh I see where you are going with this; another illogical argument. But I'm talking about myself, born in the 20th century and educated in many religions and scientific principles, and living in a "progressive" era where being anti-religious, as you admitted, is fashionable. So again, I don't care to enter a popularity contest; I'm just happy being logical, reasonable, and right. :D

So you admit you only believe what you believe because of where and when you were born.
I have never said being anti-religious is fashionable.
There is no logic and reason in faith, infact quiet the opposite...ergo its called faith.
And you may be right, or you may not.

glockmail

02-16-2010, 09:00 PM

So you admit you only believe what you believe because of where and when you were born.
I have never said being anti-religious is fashionable.
There is no logic and reason in faith, infact quiet the opposite...ergo its called faith.
And you may be right, or you may not.

No, I admit that I am born at a time and place where I am able to compare things and make the reasonable and correct decision.

glockmail

02-16-2010, 09:04 PM

It obviously takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.

Noir

02-16-2010, 09:23 PM

No, I admit that I am born at a time and place where I am able to compare things and make the reasonable and correct decision.

And that, by extension, if you had been born in another time, or place you would believe otherwise

glockmail

02-17-2010, 10:10 AM

Noir

02-17-2010, 10:50 AM

You seem to forget that I've been living on my own for much longer than I've been under Mommy and Daddy's influence. I've had sufficient time as well as education to see other points of view and develop my own.

That wouldn't matter, if you were born in Sparta during the 11th century BC, even if you lived you whole life away from Mummy and Daddy and had plenty of time to think for yourself you would not believe in a Christian god.
And thus i put it to you again, you only believe in the god you believe in because of when and where you were born

PostmodernProphet

02-17-2010, 11:00 AM

That wouldn't matter, if you were born in Sparta during the 11th century BC, even if you lived you whole life away from Mummy and Daddy and had plenty of time to think for yourself you would not believe in a Christian god.
And thus i put it to you again, you only believe in the god you believe in because of when and where you were born

so there are no atheists except those who were raised by atheists?......

Noir

02-17-2010, 11:08 AM

so there are no atheists except those who were raised by atheists?......

Ofcourse not, don't be daft. But you are more likly to be Christian if your family are, or Muslim if your family are, and so forth. Some will leave for other religions, others will leave for atheism. But many will stay with what they are taught from birth.

and congrats, you too are also Christian because of when and were you were born :)

Abbey Marie

02-17-2010, 11:12 AM

Ofcourse not, don't be daft. But you are more likly to be Christian if your family are, or Muslim if your family are, and so forth. Some will leave for other religions, others will leave for atheism. But many will stay with what they are taught from birth.

and congrats, you too are also Christian because of when and were you were born :)

Why is that a daft question? It is perfectly logical given your premise.

PostmodernProphet

02-17-2010, 11:18 AM

and congrats, you too are also Christian because of when and were you were born :)

thank you....but then I never intended to take all the credit for myself....after all, I belong to a branch of the church that thinks it has an obligation to spread the word so that those who are not so fortunate have an equal chance to make the right choices.....its why I keep responding to your questions.....so you will have a chance to see where you have made your mistakes...

Noir

02-17-2010, 11:40 AM

Why is that a daft question? It is perfectly logical given your premise.

Because its clearly wrong.

Noir

02-17-2010, 11:47 AM

thank you....but then I never intended to take all the credit for myself....after all, I belong to a branch of the church that thinks it has an obligation to spread the word so that those who are not so fortunate have an equal chance to make the right choices.....its why I keep responding to your questions.....so you will have a chance to see where you have made your mistakes...

Indeedy, but just think of all those poor Spartans, not a hope in hell, if you'll excuse the pun.

glockmail

02-17-2010, 12:52 PM

That wouldn't matter, if you were born in Sparta during the 11th century BC, even if you lived you whole life away from Mummy and Daddy and had plenty of time to think for yourself you would not believe in a Christian god.
And thus i put it to you again, you only believe in the god you believe in because of when and where you were born I'm not sure what your point is. Like you I live in the present yet unlike you I have had an open mind and learned about other religions (it was required in the Jesuit college that I attended) and I made the right choice.

Noir

02-17-2010, 12:59 PM

I'm not sure what your point is. Like you I live in the present yet unlike you I have had an open mind and learned about other religions (it was required in the Jesuit college that I attended) and I made the right choice.

My point is that you only happen to believe in the God you believe in, and you only happen to believe you are 'right' because of were and when you were born.

PostmodernProphet

02-17-2010, 03:33 PM

Indeedy, but just think of all those poor Spartans, not a hope in hell, if you'll excuse the pun.

you make so many assumptions.....there is no reason for you to worry about what steps God may have taken to be just to those who have come before, or die without hearing.....you only need to worry about yourself....

1 Peter 4:6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Abbey Marie

02-17-2010, 04:00 PM

Because its clearly wrong.

Because you say so? Gotta do better than that. It is logical.

glockmail

02-17-2010, 06:51 PM

My point is that you only happen to believe in the God you believe in, and you only happen to believe you are 'right' because of were and when you were born. Again you are wrong. When I was your age I was wrong too. But I was always inquisitive and kept an open mind and now I know that I am right.

Noir

02-17-2010, 07:07 PM

Again you are wrong. When I was your age I was wrong too. But I was always inquisitive and kept an open mind and now I know that I am right.

Naw, dude, you think you are are right. Do be so silly as to say words like 'know' though theists do like to make statements of faith as fact (see theist bus campaign)

Noir

02-17-2010, 07:09 PM

Because you say so? Gotta do better than that. It is logical.

You mean that you think that "so there are no atheists except those who were raised by atheists" is true?
=/

glockmail

02-17-2010, 08:01 PM

Naw, dude, you think you are are right. Do be so silly as to say words like 'know' though theists do like to make statements of faith as fact (see theist bus campaign) How ironic. You think you know; and your belief in atheism is also faith.

PostmodernProphet

02-18-2010, 12:07 AM

You mean that you think that "so there are no atheists except those who were raised by atheists" is true?
=/

Noir, it logically follows from your conclusion that we are captives of the beliefs of our time and place that the place to look for atheists is in the homes of atheists.....

Abbey Marie

02-18-2010, 11:27 AM

Noir, it logically follows from your conclusion that we are captives of the beliefs of our time and place that the place to look for atheists is in the homes of atheists.....

Thanks. I guess this is the explanation I owed Noir. I just thought it was so obvious. :cool:

Microcosmos

03-03-2010, 09:48 PM

I remember, when I was about 4, the family cat was having an all-out fight with the family dog. So what did I do? Well, I stuck my hand right in the middle, to stop the fight. You can guess what happened. Here I am 30 years and many band-aids later, jumping into another fight! Do I expect better results? No, not really; I guess it's just in my nature to want to see cats and dogs playing together, or even (*gasp*) cuddling!

Now I know you folks want to make it seem like there is no common ground to stand on, and you may want to play the “victim” card at times (or any other number of random cards), but (here we go) there are, for a fact, things that you can agree on. And there are plenty of households where dogs take care of cats, and vice versa; dog + cat does not necessarily = instant bloodbath.

I am enjoying this debate, and I'm not trying to stop it (I'm quite sure I couldn't even if I tried for yeeeeeears!). I'm just throwing my 2 cents into the pot again to show a different perspective, one that can see (get ready for it, here it comes) both, yes I said both, points of view.

Science does not rule out God. But who are we, as mere humans who have the opportunity to worship an AWESOME (not in the surfer sense) God, who are we to say that we can understand even a tiny portion of God's will? God is beyond human understanding. Many of the things that we who follow the Christian tradition take as Gospel and Truth are, let's face it, things handed down by men and women struggling with the very things that we struggle with today. To say that those men and women were imperfect and subject to misinterpreting God's will is considered blasphemy by some, but if we're being honest we know that it is not an overstatement.

You can tell when I get off from work early, my brain starts spasming and squirts its contents all over this forum! Sorry if I made a little bit of a mess in my excitement! ;)

Noir

03-03-2010, 10:27 PM

Noir, it logically follows from your conclusion that we are captives of the beliefs of our time and place that the place to look for atheists is in the homes of atheists.....

No, atheism comes about by rational thought.
Certain theistic religions come about by when and where you were born.

PostmodernProphet

03-03-2010, 10:39 PM

No, atheism comes about by rational thought.
.

tell me the "rational" foundation for atheism.....specifically, outline a logical argument that will support the claim "there is no god"......

Noir

03-03-2010, 10:46 PM

tell me the "rational" foundation for atheism.....specifically, outline a logical argument that will support the claim "there is no god"......

I have never claimed "there is no God" not that i know of anyway, however, there is probably no God. And that's only a deistic God, nevermind then having to pick which of the gods to follow, either a few of them, or, even more amazingly, just one, the one 'true' one....

PostmodernProphet

03-03-2010, 10:59 PM

I have never claimed "there is no God" not that i know of anyway, however, there is probably no God. And that's only a deistic God, nevermind then having to pick which of the gods to follow, either a few of them, or, even more amazingly, just one, the one 'true' one....

ah, well if a real atheist shows up, perhaps he will try to demonstrate why his beliefs are "rational thought"........in the meantime then, since you cannot explain it, I assume you are retracting your earlier statement?......after all, you did make the mistake of saying "atheism comes about by rational thought"......

Noir

03-03-2010, 11:03 PM

ah, well if a real atheist shows up, perhaps he will try to demonstrate why his beliefs are "rational thought"........

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of Gods, that does not mean they are not there, that just means they do not believe in them

Maybe Yahweh is there, maybe not, maybe Thor is there, maybe not, maybe Ra is there, maybe not. But i do not believe in any of them, and thus i am an atheist.

Noir

03-03-2010, 11:07 PM

ah, well if a real atheist shows up, perhaps he will try to demonstrate why his beliefs are "rational thought"........in the meantime then, since you cannot explain it, I assume you are retracting your earlier statement?......after all, you did make the mistake of saying "atheism comes about by rational thought"......

I can explain why it is unlikely, through rational thought, infact if that's what you want to know i must suggest you read chapter 4 of the God Delusion by R. Dawkins titled 'Why there is almost certainly no God'

PostmodernProphet

03-04-2010, 07:44 AM

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of Gods, that does not mean they are not there, that just means they do not believe in them

clarification......if you are simply saying that atheists say "there are no gods" but might be wrong, I can obviously agree with you......

but if you are saying that atheists say "there might be gods but I don't believe it", then you are wrong about your definition of 'atheist'........

PostmodernProphet

03-04-2010, 07:47 AM

I can explain why it is unlikely, through rational thought, infact if that's what you want to know i must suggest you read chapter 4 of the God Delusion by R. Dawkins titled 'Why there is almost certainly no God'

1) what I want you to do is defend what you said by providing a logical argument that will support the claim "there is no god"......
2) screw Dawkins, he's not here to defend his claims in an argument......YOU provide the defense of what you claimed....

Noir

03-04-2010, 08:12 AM

1) what I want you to do is defend what you said by providing a logical argument that will support the claim "there is no god"......
2) screw Dawkins, he's not here to defend his claims in an argument......YOU provide the defense of what you claimed....

There you are using that pharse again. I will never support the claim "there is no god" that would be stupid, i will however support the claim "there is probably no god"
I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god) but i want to make that clear from the outset as you seem to have 'what i claim' a bit mixed up by suggesting i claim statements of fact rather that probibility. It is the theist not the atheist that make statements of fact about that that which they can not know.

glockmail

03-04-2010, 08:59 AM

No, atheism comes about by rational thought.
... Not as demonstrated by you in his forum.

Noir

03-04-2010, 09:01 AM

Not as demonstrated by you in his forum.

Care to point out something illogical?

glockmail

03-04-2010, 09:15 AM

You know what I'm talking about. But to acknowledge that would completely destroy your belief system.

Noir

03-04-2010, 09:18 AM

You know what I'm talking about. But to acknowledge that would completely destroy your belief system.

Well if you're not going to contribute to the discussion the shu away,

PostmodernProphet

03-04-2010, 11:40 AM

There you are using that pharse again. I will never support the claim "there is no god" that would be stupid, i will however support the claim "there is probably no god"
I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god) but i want to make that clear from the outset as you seem to have 'what i claim' a bit mixed up by suggesting i claim statements of fact rather that probibility. It is the theist not the atheist that make statements of fact about that that which they can not know.

I say that is what you claimed because that is what you stated....I quote "atheism comes about by rational thought".....now, what YOU support is not relevant.....atheists claim there is no god, you have said that belief is brought about by rational thought.....either you ought to retract that statement or provide evidence of how that is brought about rationally.....is that not logical?.....

all you need to do is retract "atheism comes about by rational thought" and replace it with "I think it is rational to believe a god probably does not exist"....then I have nothing to argue about.....

Originally Posted by Noir View Post
There you are using that pharse again. I will never support the claim "there is no god" that would be stupid, i will however support the claim "there is probably no god"
I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god) but i want to make that clear from the outset as you seem to have 'what i claim' a bit mixed up by suggesting i claim statements of fact rather that probibility.

[quote]It is the theist not the atheist that make statements of fact about that that which they can not know.

bullshit on wheels....
theists are honest and admit they are making statements of faith....it's the atheists who pretend it's "rational thought" instead of a statement of faith.....