[quote]kamui wrote:
I have no problem sounding like some religious people. I happen to do it quite often.
[/quote]
Very true. Kamui is not afraid of truth.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Stupid science with all that electricity, medicine and computers and shit.[/quote]
I love science. There are so many misconceptions by atheists and I have to wonder where it comes from. Like I said before, with the exception of Kamui and sometimes Mak, it looks as though you all read from the same book. I am religious, therefore I hate science, or think it’s bullshit?
I think it’s laughable to propose that science is diametrically opposed to religion. How does that even get started? Science is a wonderfully amazing tool to understand a little about the universe we live in. Just because science is a hammer, doesn’t mean that everything else is a nail.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
Quibbling about semantics is really just another way to cloud the real issue. The wisdom you speak of in the bible is definitely there however the fantastic stories of miracles and such is added without any proof or mathematics thus making these fantasies rubbish. One chooses to believe in this rubbish for many reasons not unlike the psychological phenomena exhibited at rock concerts or the deification celebrities garner. [/quote]
Let’s examine your logic…
- fantastic stories are miracles are added without proof - false premise to begin with.
- no proof or mathematics
therefore it’s all rubbish. Sound about right?
So eye witness testimony is not proof? Better tell that to the justice system. Because if somebody see you commit a crime and testifies to it, your ass will go to prison. So in many cases eye witness testimony is accepted as sufficient proof.
Not being able to prove it mathematically is a ridiculous proposition. Miracles, by definition, don’t fit the convenient box of math, science or common experience. If they did, they would not be miracles.
Miracles are not the basis of faith. Many people have observed miracles, even in the bible and yet still did not believe.
Further, there is no evidence to the contrary that these things did not occur. It’s not common, even in ancient texts that profound truths be surrounded or enforced by a bunch of lies.
Still the problem remains, as with most atheists, that it’s ok to level criticism on a book you never read.
If any atheist wants to hold credibility with regards to their discussions on the bible, they need to read it. Otherwise, to make these bold proclamations about something you never read is foolish especially to those of us who have. We have an advantage is that we know what it says and you do not. We can speak from a position of strength on the issue, you cannot.
Since you cannot speak on it from a position of actual knowledge of it, it’s probably best you refrain from commenting on it.
This ain’t your average forum, people round here do their homework. It’s the weirdest muscle-head forum I have ever been around.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s laughable to propose that science is diametrically opposed to religion. How does that even get started? [/quote]
Pat, I am with you, but there is the issue with the Roman Catholic Church and Nicolaus Copernicus. This is how it got started.
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Amusingly enough, newtonian physics is a theoretical model explaining the behavior of free-falling bodies.
And, strictly speaking, free-falling bodies doesn’t even exist.
Y U have to be that way?
He wants to BELIEVE so very badly?
Why make fun of him…
The arrogance…[/quote]
Cheap anti-religiousity is exactly that : cheap.
it merely screams “insecurity”.
Doesn’t worth our effort to oppose it.
On the other hand, dogmatic scientism is an hideous hydra. We need to behead it again and again, each time another head grows.
That’s why.
Well, that, and arrogance, obviously. [/quote]
Yeah, we need to chop the head off an approach which uses logic to make rational decisions about the world we observe around us. Much better that we promote iron age holy books, that can’t even present a self-consistent story, that play on the credulity and intellectual inferiority of the general populace to control them with absolutes and certainty. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
There is no dogma in science, no matter how hard religious idiots try to insinuate that there is. Science is always open to falsification, and is always open to new ideas if there is evidence to support the hypothesis. If it is not like this, then it isn’t science. That’s the bottom line.
On the other hand, every single religion claims to be the one true religion, to know their sky-fairy is the cause, to know the mind of this entity, and that that entity is so concerned about them that it intervenes on their behalf. Religion claims to have the truth, absolute truth and absolute explanations for the world around us.
It is so painfully obvious that all religions are human creations, and that they have nothing to do with reality, but the dumb and the weak of our species cling to it like a life raft in the ocean. NO matter how obvious the contradiction, or how plainly incorrect the statements and assumptions are in these mythologies are proved to be by our own scientific endeavours, we are dragged back into the mire of angry deities and petulant martyrs.
It is well beyond time that our species left these inadequate myths behind, and that we condemn them to the pit of “stupid shit we used to believe”. We should let these beliefs vanish into the ether along with other nonsense like Atlantis, chosen races or peoples, the earth being flat, or the existence of fairies and trolls.[/quote]
Clearly you did not understand what Kamui was saying. Religion is not a method by which to observe the world. That is for science to do. Using science as a religion or to discredit religion is the heads that need to be chopped. That’s an extension of science that it is simply not capable of having. They are mutually exclusive, yet they do intersect at some points and they seldom if ever disagree.
Religion will never go away. The proposition that nothing can do something is logically impossible. It will never tread water, it’s impossible to prove because it’s a false proposition…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
Everything but an uncaused cause has to come from something.
But this uncaused cause doesn’t “come from nothing”.
It is, but it doesn’t “come from”, at all, since it’s uncaused.
or non-contingent.
or necessary.
Hey Pat good to see you again. I have read the bible most likely more times than you and in more languages. As well, I have done lengthy studies of its verses. You miss my points by great margins because of your myopic view that is programmed and dictated by the directors in charge of your mind leading your religion. I wish you well and to keep hoping something you will never have. The worms will eat your flesh along with the bacteria, etc. and your essence will return to the never ending cycle of earth and universe and so on. Your statements about me have no credence and you have no knowledge of my pedigree. Bless you and I hope you fulfill your insecure life by attempting to disillusion only yourself with your misgivings.
I’ve had fun reading everyone’s comments and now I will return to living and working and being successful. Hope you all have a great time beating each other up with no outcome besides reassuring yourself that you are correct.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I’ve had fun reading everyone’s comments and now I will return to living and working and being successful. Hope you all have a great time beating each other up with no outcome besides reassuring yourself that you are correct.[/quote]
Passive aggressive NINJA-FU!!
Come on dude, sack up and stick around…all are welcome.
Sorry, my sack has to prepare for bigger things like running my business, family, writing, powerlifting, and attending the great temple of doing productive things of which this thread doesn’t seem to fit.
Oh, this was fun though like going to a Library. Who goes to the library anymore…gosh I have a computer…damn the heavenly ghost just shut down my internet…bye…bye
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
Sorry, my sack has to prepare for bigger things like running my business, family, writing, powerlifting, and attending the great temple of doing productive things of which this thread doesn’t seem to fit.
[/quote]
Stickied… for maximum butthurt.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
…I have read the bible most likely more times than you and in more languages. As well, I have done lengthy studies of its verses…
[/quote]
LOL
And the moon really is made of cheese.
[/quote]
That is probably more of an insult in the US because our cheese is, how shall I put that, better .
In Kamuis case, much better.
We would not mind so much.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
…I have read the bible most likely more times than you and in more languages. As well, I have done lengthy studies of its verses…
[/quote]
LOL
And the moon really is made of cheese.
[/quote]
That is probably more of an insult in the US because our cheese is, how shall I put that, better .
In Kamuis case, much better.
We would not mind so much.
[/quote]
I have heard that Franzosisch Kase is the ticket.
But I have no doubt there are wedges of Franzosisch Kase that have read the Bible more than Gorille de Vanille.[/quote]
That is probably because, contrary to Brussels verdicts, those cheese cultures contain more bacteria than a Las Vegas brothel.
Intentionally!
No doubt,some of them are the reading kind.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
Everything but an uncaused cause has to come from something.
But this uncaused cause doesn’t “come from nothing”.
It is, but it doesn’t “come from”, at all, since it’s uncaused.
or non-contingent.
or necessary.
[/quote]
I see, this must be that irrefutable “logic” Pat is talking about. Nothing can come from nothing, except God of course. Got it.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
Everything but an uncaused cause has to come from something.
But this uncaused cause doesn’t “come from nothing”.
It is, but it doesn’t “come from”, at all, since it’s uncaused.
or non-contingent.
or necessary.
[/quote]
I see, this must be that irrefutable “logic” Pat is talking about. Nothing can come from nothing, except God of course. Got it.
[/quote]
Clearly you don’t understand the argument. The stop gap to the argument necessarily begets that said Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. It is irrefutable. It’s necessary and true by definition. Go ahead, try to prove it wrong… Go nuts. People have been trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s laughable to propose that science is diametrically opposed to religion. How does that even get started? [/quote]
Pat, I am with you, but there is the issue with the Roman Catholic Church and Nicolaus Copernicus. This is how it got started.
[/quote]
The Catholic Church has admitted their wrong in the matter. Fat load of good it did ol’ Nicolaus, but the mistake was admitted and corrected.