Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
So tell me is it a proposition one holds to be true or just a physiological state?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Right, the fact that your god was only putting him to the test and maybe “fooling around a bit”, that makes the story loving.
Still a very, very, very fucked up story. You have to do a whole lot of equivocation to make that anything but fucking evil. Although, I’m sure you’re up to the task.
[/quote]
It may have been a little mean, but it was not a story of God asking Abraham commit child sacrifice. Which is what you claim and I refuted.
Whoptie do. God has not been detected by scientific measures? I am underwhelmed. Is this what these books taught you? Technically, if you want to get nitty gritty, your simply introducing another strawman, but I’ll let it stand in that I love discussing science in the realm of cosmology. Science not detecting God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Science tells us many things about the world but the scientific method simply ends the process of discovery once a correlation is established and a conclusion draw. Science, tells us only of the physical world, anything outside of that, is beyond the scope of science. So is would make sense that science cannot discover that which sits outside of it’s realm.
Further, technically speaking, even science itself is a contingent existence. And science is a metaphysical construct.
Since science deals with
Also, as for ‘other gods’, there’s evidence for them, people have made statues and wrote stories and all kinds of stuff to demonstrate their existence. So that’s actually evidence, whether it’s valid evidence or not is another matter, but evidence it is. Whether they exist or I don’t really care. I am only concerned with the Creator of existence, that on which all existence depends.
I cannot prove one way or another that those other gods exist or not, but I can prove they are not the creator the non-contingent being. They just simply don’t make that claim.
That claim is all I am interested in. Proof for it, is existence itself…Didn’t that Hitchens guy cover that?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I’ve already responded to your Jephthat quote did you miss it?
[/quote]
The story contends that Jephthat did sacrifice his daughter, but God never asked for it, nor was it established whether or not he approved of the act.
It was a quite confusing thing for him to have done, even to those around him at the time.
But never the less, there’s no point in discussing God’s nature if he doesn’t exist. Nothingness, has no nature to discuss.
Really, until existence is established or refuted, these conversations literally have no meaning.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I’ve already responded to your Jephthat quote did you miss it?
[/quote]
The story contends that Jephthat did sacrifice his daughter, but God never asked for it, nor was it established whether or not he approved of the act.
It was a quite confusing thing for him to have done, even to those around him at the time.
But never the less, there’s no point in discussing God’s nature if he doesn’t exist. Nothingness, has no nature to discuss.
Really, until existence is established or refuted, these conversations literally have no meaning.
[/quote]
The Jephthat story is indeed intriguing but there is more than meets the eye from a brief reading of the text.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.html
However I do agree with the latter part of what you said.
Work is kicking my ass these past few days, fella’s. I’ll have to get back to my responses maybe later tonight.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Work is kicking my ass these past few days, fella’s. I’ll have to get back to my responses maybe later tonight. [/quote]
K. We’ll see ya later…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
So tell me is it a proposition one holds to be true or just a physiological state?[/quote]
I don’t expect most atheists to get that religion isn’t the result of brain washing… This idea that the Christian experience is either a collective lie, or a collection of mass stupidity based on group-think is a position I expect them to hold. I mean, it’s a stretch to think that about 2 billion people are delusional and/ or stupid. Because if it’s just that, then it’s unreasonable, and it’s an easy dragon to slay. This I can only imagine is the catalyst to the hubris, arrogance and apparent smugness of the typical atheist. They have been programmed to dismiss us as dumb or crazy. The fact there is no basis in fact, does not seem to stop this misconception.
Again I have to exclude Kamui from this as he has not expressed this view in anyway and does not dismiss the whole Christian experience.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.[/quote]
If your not drawing a conclusion then how have you arrived at that point?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.[/quote]
If your not drawing a conclusion then how have you arrived at that point?[/quote]
Honestly I don’t remember how I arrived at that point. Nobody told or suggested to me that God didn’t exist and I certainly didn’t read about it on the internet/school/books. Your thoughts?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.[/quote]
If your not drawing a conclusion then how have you arrived at that point?[/quote]
Honestly I don’t remember how I arrived at that point. Nobody told or suggested to me that God didn’t exist and I certainly didn’t read about it on the internet/school/books. Your thoughts?[/quote]I’m not Pat or Joab but my thoughts are that you’re exactly what the bible says you should be, doing exactly what it says you’re going to do… Now back to you gys.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s another really good video debunking William Lane Craig
[/quote]
Tell me raj do you ever check out what someone has to say without filtering it through some youtube atheist?
Forget for a moment that you are derailing the topic of this thread. If you want to continue this, start a new thread about cosmology.
Anyways, the creator of this video has terrible grasp of law of logic and comes up with a terrible analogy to somehow prove deductive logic wrong. I peer lead/(teach) fields and waves at a university. Ill just quote myself where I responded to Olena(which I think is where she got that terrible argument as well).
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If the conclusion is valid and the premises are valid, then the conclusion i necessarily;y true.
[/quote]
cannot know whether your deductive argument’s premises are in fact true unless they fall within the realm of scientifically known information .
[/quote]
Wrong the premises in a deductive argument need not fall within the realm of “scientifically know information” in order for it to be valid and sound although science can certainly play a part in some of the premises of some deductive arguments. Nor could science test the premises in the Argument from Contingency that Pat usually presents because science presupposes them and in fact those premises are necessary for us to even do science in the first place.
Your poorly constructed argument to show that science determines the validity(not soundness) of a deductive argument is a misunderstanding of what a deductive argument and science is.
This is a valid argument.
- A particle of mass M mass’s is a constant independent of any reference frame it is in.
- Force is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration.
- This situation occurs in R ^3 space
- A particle subjected to a constant force greater than zero will experience constant acceleration while the velocity will increase linearly with time.
- The velocity this particle can attain is any member of the set of real numbers m/s including greater than 3x10^8m/s if subjected to a force for a long enough period.
Now suppose there exist a hypothetical universe in which those premises are true, the conclusion is inescapably true. It just so happens that in our universe, from the inductive inferences we get through science give good evidence that the first three premises happen to not be true and thus the argument isn’t sound in this universe thought valid. It seems that the mass of a particle is function of its rest mass and velocity in a given reference frame, that force is equal to the derivative of momentum(where the momentum is the product of mass and velocity) which Newton originally said force is so that there is no contradiction between him and Einstein and that the reason for this is that space may not be R ^3 as we normally perceive it.
The premises of the Argument from Contingency are far more basic than the ones used to conduct science in the first place.
Read where I start on page 6 till page 12 where me and Pat explain and answered any objection to the argument, if you have any objections I will be happy to discuss them with you.
[/quote]
Do you go to a university raj? If you do you can easily read his book for yourself online.[/quote]
Yes, but my background is not in science.
I’ve caught so many lies from Christian apologetics, that I’m very skeptical of believing anything they have to say. WLC stuff has been debunked and he refuses to debate Matt (Guy in the video).
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me the strawman in the 1st video I posted.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s another really good video debunking William Lane Craig
[/quote]
Tell me raj do you ever check out what someone has to say without filtering it through some youtube atheist?
Forget for a moment that you are derailing the topic of this thread. If you want to continue this, start a new thread about cosmology.
Anyways, the creator of this video has terrible grasp of law of logic and comes up with a terrible analogy to somehow prove deductive logic wrong. I peer lead/(teach) fields and waves at a university. Ill just quote myself where I responded to Olena(which I think is where she got that terrible argument as well).
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If the conclusion is valid and the premises are valid, then the conclusion i necessarily;y true.
[/quote]
cannot know whether your deductive argument’s premises are in fact true unless they fall within the realm of scientifically known information .
[/quote]
Wrong the premises in a deductive argument need not fall within the realm of “scientifically know information” in order for it to be valid and sound although science can certainly play a part in some of the premises of some deductive arguments. Nor could science test the premises in the Argument from Contingency that Pat usually presents because science presupposes them and in fact those premises are necessary for us to even do science in the first place.
Your poorly constructed argument to show that science determines the validity(not soundness) of a deductive argument is a misunderstanding of what a deductive argument and science is.
This is a valid argument.
- A particle of mass M mass’s is a constant independent of any reference frame it is in.
- Force is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration.
- This situation occurs in R ^3 space
- A particle subjected to a constant force greater than zero will experience constant acceleration while the velocity will increase linearly with time.
- The velocity this particle can attain is any member of the set of real numbers m/s including greater than 3x10^8m/s if subjected to a force for a long enough period.
Now suppose there exist a hypothetical universe in which those premises are true, the conclusion is inescapably true. It just so happens that in our universe, from the inductive inferences we get through science give good evidence that the first three premises happen to not be true and thus the argument isn’t sound in this universe thought valid. It seems that the mass of a particle is function of its rest mass and velocity in a given reference frame, that force is equal to the derivative of momentum(where the momentum is the product of mass and velocity) which Newton originally said force is so that there is no contradiction between him and Einstein and that the reason for this is that space may not be R ^3 as we normally perceive it.
The premises of the Argument from Contingency are far more basic than the ones used to conduct science in the first place.
Read where I start on page 6 till page 12 where me and Pat explain and answered any objection to the argument, if you have any objections I will be happy to discuss them with you.
[/quote]
Do you go to a university raj? If you do you can easily read his book for yourself online.[/quote]
Yes, but my background is not in science.
I’ve caught so many lies from Christian apologetics, that I’m very skeptical of believing anything they have to say. WLC stuff has been debunked and he refuses to debate Matt (Guy in the video).
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me the strawman in the 1st video I posted.[/quote]
I have already explained the strawman. Look in this thread again.
Edit:on page 4
Since you go to university type “The Blackwell companion to natural theology” on your library data base and you should be able to access the ebook and you should be able to read the argument he presents and other good arguments in full. Or maybe you want to start a new thread relating to the topic?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.[/quote]
If your not drawing a conclusion then how have you arrived at that point?[/quote]
Honestly I don’t remember how I arrived at that point. Nobody told or suggested to me that God didn’t exist and I certainly didn’t read about it on the internet/school/books. Your thoughts?[/quote]
So if you arrived at ‘No God’ and it’s not a conclusion you drew, then what is it?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
- A particle of mass M mass’s is a constant independent of any reference frame it is in.
- Force is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration.
- This situation occurs in R ^3 space
- A particle subjected to a constant force greater than zero will experience constant acceleration while the velocity will increase linearly with time.
- The velocity this particle can attain is any member of the set of real numbers m/s including greater than 3x10^8m/s if subjected to a force for a long enough period.
Now suppose there exist a hypothetical universe in which those premises are true, the conclusion is inescapably true. It just so happens that in our universe, from the inductive inferences we get through science give good evidence that the first three premises happen to not be true and thus the argument isn’t sound in this universe thought valid. It seems that the mass of a particle is function of its rest mass and velocity in a given reference frame, that force is equal to the derivative of momentum(where the momentum is the product of mass and velocity) which Newton originally said force is so that there is no contradiction between him and Einstein and that the reason for this is that space may not be R ^3 as we normally perceive it.
The premises of the Argument from Contingency are far more basic than the ones used to conduct science in the first place.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife?id=4694416&pageNo=5
[/quote]
That was a good thread…
Do you go to a university raj? If you do you can easily read his book for yourself online.[/quote]
Yes, but my background is not in science.
I’ve caught so many lies from Christian apologetics, that I’m very skeptical of believing anything they have to say. WLC stuff has been debunked and he refuses to debate Matt (Guy in the video).
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me the strawman in the 1st video I posted.[/quote]
I want to know what lies Christian apologetics told you?
And second, have you dropped the cosmology discussion as we were about to start it, or are you going to yet get to it?
You said it was false, I want you to prove it wrong. But please no more links unless they are really, really relevant. I don’t have time to chase every link and video somebody posts to argue for them.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Atheism is the only true belief (or lack of belief). Every religion is only a result of being told from others what to think and believe.[/quote]
Apparently so is atheism. I mean, you didn’t make all your crap up? It sounds like every other atheist.
Atheism is a fallacious position.[/quote]
Atheism isn’t a religion, lack of belief is not the result of being told to not think/believe in something. And what is an example of something that was made up?[/quote]
I am speaking of the views you espouse, they are the same as every other atheist, save for Kamui, which means you’ve all read the same kinds of things.
No, I expect your conclusion that there is no God is a failure of reason. [/quote]
“your conclusion that there is no God”
That phrase is false when speaking in terms of belief and non-belief.[/quote]
If your not drawing a conclusion then how have you arrived at that point?[/quote]
Honestly I don’t remember how I arrived at that point. Nobody told or suggested to me that God didn’t exist and I certainly didn’t read about it on the internet/school/books. Your thoughts?[/quote]
So if you arrived at ‘No God’ and it’s not a conclusion you drew, then what is it?[/quote]
I’m not sure of the answer to that which is why I am asking. I can see coming to the conclusion that there IS a god, even if its as simple as someone telling you it was true and you believed them. How did you come to the conclusion that santa clause did not exist?