[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
If they aren’t claiming to know, they are agnostic, not atheist. Or you can call them negative atheist.
And their is evidence depending on how you look at existence.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
No, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God. What you are referring to as atheism is agnosticism, which treats the position as an unknown.
If you are atheist, you know God doesn’t exist…You just can’t prove it. Nor can you disprove arguments for the existence of God. So it is a faith, a belief with out proof.
What I find fascinating is that it is the right wing that is religious. The conservative sober financial mindset combined with belief in an invisible skyfriend. The wish for a small government, and belief in an eternal dictator in the sky.
It has really made me confused.
Regarding the question on something from nothing, I can not wrap my mind around it, but a god would also have to come from nothing, so it does not simplify the question one bit for me. I am just not equipped for it.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
If they aren’t claiming to know, they are agnostic, not atheist. Or you can call them negative atheist.
And their is evidence depending on how you look at existence.[/quote]
Many atheists hold the personal belief there isn’t a god, but atheists are not asserting whether a god does or doesn’t exist.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
If they aren’t claiming to know, they are agnostic, not atheist. Or you can call them negative atheist.
And their is evidence depending on how you look at existence.[/quote]
Many atheists hold the personal belief there isn’t a god, but atheists are not asserting whether a god does or doesn’t exist.
What evidence is there?
[/quote]
I can only say that you don’t appear to know what the word means.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
Theism is equally offensive to our logical understanding of the universe and its laws. An uncaused entity? A being outside of time?
[/quote]
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
Not really, even if the universe has always existed, whether in or out of time, or if there is a multiverse, or and infinite cycle of universes, it all has the property of contingency and there is nothing that can be done about that fact.
[quote]
I agree with you in that I believe that a God (not YOUR God, though) is one of the most likely explanations for existence. But I accept that I don’t actually KNOW that, and that it could be spectacularly wrong.[/quote]
Actually, you cannot deduce that, you can only infer. The Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, Prime Mover, etc can be deduced. The fact that there can only be one and not many and the fact that God has these very same properties one can infer they are the same being.
What is arguable is whether or not this ‘thing’ can be known, related to, or even has the slightest give a shit for this tiny creation in the little section of the universe we occupy.
If you believe in the Uncaused-cause, then it’s the same not different God we are talking about…
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
If they aren’t claiming to know, they are agnostic, not atheist. Or you can call them negative atheist.
And their is evidence depending on how you look at existence.[/quote]
Many atheists hold the personal belief there isn’t a god, but atheists are not asserting whether a god does or doesn’t exist.
What evidence is there?
[/quote]
I can only say that you don’t appear to know what the word means.[/quote]
There are multiple subsets and definitions for the term atheist, the one thing that holds true in all definition is the above. A disbelief in all super natural claims.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Also what evidence is there?[/quote]
Reason and observation tell me that something cannot come from nothing and that everything has a cause. Existence itself is evidence in that light. I’m not trying to argue or prove the point, just stating how I see it.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
As opposed to believing in the fairy tales of the Bible? You call that reasonable?
Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of all super natural claims due to the lack of supporting evidence. Atheists are not claiming to know god doesn’t exist, they just have disbelief in YOUR religious (and other religions) claims.[/quote]
If they aren’t claiming to know, they are agnostic, not atheist. Or you can call them negative atheist.
And their is evidence depending on how you look at existence.[/quote]
Many atheists hold the personal belief there isn’t a god, but atheists are not asserting whether a god does or doesn’t exist.
What evidence is there?
[/quote]
I can only say that you don’t appear to know what the word means.[/quote]
There are multiple subsets and definitions for the term atheist, the one thing that holds true in all definition is the above. A disbelief in all super natural claims.
[/quote]
This definition would exclude a positive or strong atheist.
He sounds like he’d be a fun guy to talk with, but he is disingenuous to relate his knowledge of leprechauns to his knowledge of the nature of existence.
Also as an aside, I believe there were a group of really short people the myth of leprechauns is founded on, so he is wrong to believe they never existed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think this is a good explanation of the definition @ 2:25
Nah, he screws it up. You’re as is he, is confusing faith with ‘religious faith’. Faith is simply believing something without absolute proof. Which accounts for most of what we consider knowledge. I too have sufficient reason for believing that God does exist. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. That’s not the same as my religious faith which really delves in to the nature of this God. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. They’re not my arguments mind you, I didn’t make it up, but I use them and I am hopelessly predictable on the matter.
I use cosmology. If you ask I’ll post a link, complete with counter arguments and then I defend it from there. I have engaged in this conversation so many times I can’t even count. Now Kant’s view of ontology is an interesting one I have been paying more attention to lately. It is sort of an ontological argument but he hybrids cosmology into it, sort of like a proof that his ontology is right. But it is an interesting take…but still at it’s core basically cosmology.
He sounds like he’d be a fun guy to talk with, but he is disingenuous to relate his knowledge of leprechauns to his knowledge of the nature of existence.
Also as an aside, I believe there were a group of really short people the myth of leprechauns is founded on, so he is wrong to believe they never existed.[/quote]
Believe it or not he was a Christian for 25 years and lost his faith while studying to become Southern Baptist minister.
They have some pretty interesting discussions on that show, including an hour debate with Ray Comfort. He speaks very well, if you’re bored I would recommend checking out some of their other videos. It’s not really about preaching atheism as it s about discussion religious claims and findings in modern day science.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
Theism is equally offensive to our logical understanding of the universe and its laws. An uncaused entity? A being outside of time?
[/quote]
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
Not really, even if the universe has always existed, whether in or out of time, or if there is a multiverse, or and infinite cycle of universes, it all has the property of contingency and there is nothing that can be done about that fact.
[quote]
I agree with you in that I believe that a God (not YOUR God, though) is one of the most likely explanations for existence. But I accept that I don’t actually KNOW that, and that it could be spectacularly wrong.[/quote]
Actually, you cannot deduce that, you can only infer. The Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, Prime Mover, etc can be deduced. The fact that there can only be one and not many and the fact that God has these very same properties one can infer they are the same being.
What is arguable is whether or not this ‘thing’ can be known, related to, or even has the slightest give a shit for this tiny creation in the little section of the universe we occupy.
If you believe in the Uncaused-cause, then it’s the same not different God we are talking about… [/quote]
I agree with almost everything that you have listed. In fact, it is for many of these precise reasons that I consider myself a theist…though I describe myself as an agnostic, because in the end I have the humility to admit that these things may simply be beyond our understanding.
I always tell this to atheists: that matter exists at all is an inarguable violation of the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them. Defined as broadly as possible, then, matter is an act of God.
I have persuaded my fair share of staunch atheists to accept that a God may in fact exist.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think this is a good explanation of the definition @ 2:25
[/quote]
Nah, he screws it up. You’re as is he, is confusing faith with ‘religious faith’. Faith is simply believing something without absolute proof. Which accounts for most of what we consider knowledge. I too have sufficient reason for believing that God does exist. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. That’s not the same as my religious faith which really delves in to the nature of this God. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. They’re not my arguments mind you, I didn’t make it up, but I use them and I am hopelessly predictable on the matter.
I use cosmology. If you ask I’ll post a link, complete with counter arguments and then I defend it from there. I have engaged in this conversation so many times I can’t even count. Now Kant’s view of ontology is an interesting one I have been paying more attention to lately. It is sort of an ontological argument but he hybrids cosmology into it, sort of like a proof that his ontology is right. But it is an interesting take…but still at it’s core basically cosmology.
[/quote]
Also as an aside, I believe there were a group of really short people the myth of leprechauns is founded on, so he is wrong to believe they never existed.[/quote]
I think about this often. I doubt that many of these folkloric myths are founded in absolutely nothing…as if someone came home to his hut one day and just made up a story about gold-hoarding midgets.
I read an interesting article a while back on the origin of vampire myths. Skin decomposing around the fingernails can make a dead body look like it has long, devilish nails growing in. Blood can be pushed up the esophagus in the first few weeks post-mortem and consequently pool around the mouth, making it look a lot like a corpse has become animated at some point during the night and fed off of someone’s blood. Couple that with some guy getting stabbed in the middle of the night and no one owning up to it, and BAM: vampires.
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, the concept of a god is something that is outside of the universe. You cannot apply constraints of the universe to something outside it. It is flawed logic.
