Questions for Atheist in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:

[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, definitionalaly that is impossible. That which is uncaused must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. What makes the rules cannot be defined by them. [/quote]

And yet the universe couldn’t possibly be uncaused.[/quote]

If you have an argument or evidence to the contrary, bring it.[/quote]

If you have any evidence for a space genie who poofed the universe into existence, bring it.

102

[quote]pat wrote:

I can say nothing here. I am speechless. What ever twists and turns you face, I hope they turn out well. Peace be upon you SMH, in what ever form it comes.[/quote]

Thanks man, and right back at you. Though we frequently find ourselves at odds on the subject, in the end I think we see eye to eye more than one would think.

103

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:

It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]

It’s more like saying “I reject that Santa Claus delivers gifts to everyone on Christmas because I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.”[/quote]

If we take the “father in the sky” view, then yes, I would agree with you.

If we take a wider view of god as just the creator of the universe, your statement doesn’t hold anymore. We can observe that santa doesn’t bring gifts. We cannot observe that there is no god. In order to prove there is no god, you would essentially have to know how the universe came to be.[/quote]

I cannot prove a negative (i.e.,that there is no god, or that Santa does not bring gifts). No one can prove a negative. It is a logical fallacy to require anyone to do so. If there is a god, however, there should be some proof. Just like if Santa brings gifts, there should be proof. [/quote]

‘I cannot prove a negative’ is bullshit. Well maybe you cannot, but I bet your finances can prove a negative real quick. A little hard luck and you are in the negative, and that would be provable.
aside from that, basic math, proves negatives everyday. Negatives are ‘something’ what you cannot prove is ‘nothing’ and then something.

104

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

But God as simply a creator, or an uncaused cause, or an uncontingent entity upon which we are contingent? Plausible, in my view.[/quote]

So if it is plausible, you must have some reference to something else that is an effect without a cause. But what? I know of no such examples in our human experience.[/quote]

I think we are simply using two different definitions of the word “God.” I am speaking, and I intend to be understood, in the broadest terms possible. The best way to illustrate this is with a proof:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

The argument is valid, i.e. its conclusion follows logically and necessarily from its premises. Is it sound (i.e. the premises are all true, and therefore so is the conclusion)? Well, at first glance it seems to be. But, then, can we verify that the first premise ALWAYS and in all corners of existence has been unequivocally true?

Probably not. But what we can say is that the argument is strong and to our admittedly weak and corruptible human minds, it seems convincing if not bulletproof.

One very important caveat: this is not an argument for a specific God. It is an argument that recognizes the fact that existence itself is a violation of Newtonian physics. It seems that something exists or at one time existed without ever having been caused to exist. Perhaps this is matter itself. Perhaps it is a supranatural entity that more closely resembles a traditional God. Perhaps it is some form of energy or consciousness inconceivable to the human mind. I don’t know. I simply know that, defined as such, I believe in “God.”

105

[quote]espenl wrote:
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]

I think I got it.

Truly religious people are as servile as the next guy, they just already have an almighty surveillance system in place and therefore do not need the state to do it for them.

People who are not so sure must have a secular institution to satisfy the need for an all seeing and all powerful entity to bow down to.

106

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.

107

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

What is your religious affiliation? [/quote]

Catholic. My arguments for the existence of of God are based on logic and reason. My understanding on who He is, is rooted in my faith. Understand though, that that is not the only way. We don’t consider ourselves any better than anybody else. We feel blessed in many ways, but that’s it. Those blessings are not to provide pride or arrogance, it’s personal.[/quote]

Do you have evidence for any of the specific claims the Bible makes?

Do you believe the world is 6000-10,000 years old?

108

851×564 301 KB

Here we go

109

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.[/quote]

Than your moral code is your god. You aren’t truly atheist. You believe in something supernatural without reason.

110

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ironically, without god, discrimination against atheists can’t be called bad.[/quote]

Why is that? Because then everyone would be an atheist?[/quote]

Because in a world without the supernatural good and bad don’t exist. No one outcome can be said to be any better than another.

[/quote]

That’s not true.

Living in a society we would come to the conclusion certain acts are good and others are bad. I don’t want to have my possessions stolen and you don’t either so we would agree stealing is bad and thus enforce a law against theft.

You don’t need some supernatural god to tell you what is good and what is bad.[/quote]

I never said a god had to tell you anything. I said good and bad themselves are supernatural. You can come to the conclusion that genetics and evolution arrived at our current behavior and view, but you cannot value anything over anything else without and appeal to the supernatural.

Believing in good and bad is the same as believing in god. It isn’t real. It isn’t a part of the universe. It isn’t based on logic or reason. It does not exist as part of a supernatural-less universe. Period. I’m am only stating a fact. If you are really an atheist, you must deny good and evil.

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.

112

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]

What theories? I don’t know of a single one.

113

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]

What theories? I don’t know of a single one.[/quote]

I too am curious as to what specific “theories” are being spoken of here.

114

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]

What theories? I don’t know of a single one.[/quote]

I too am curious as to what specific “theories” are being spoken of here.[/quote]

I know hawking has one where the universe could come from gravity, but that wouldn’t be the beginning, because gravity would have to exist first.

115

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ironically, without god, discrimination against atheists can’t be called bad.[/quote]

Why is that? Because then everyone would be an atheist?[/quote]

Because in a world without the supernatural good and bad don’t exist. No one outcome can be said to be any better than another.

[/quote]

That’s not true.

Living in a society we would come to the conclusion certain acts are good and others are bad. I don’t want to have my possessions stolen and you don’t either so we would agree stealing is bad and thus enforce a law against theft.

You don’t need some supernatural god to tell you what is good and what is bad.[/quote]

I never said a god had to tell you anything. I said good and bad themselves are supernatural. You can come to the conclusion that genetics and evolution arrived at our current behavior and view, but you cannot value anything over anything else without and appeal to the supernatural.

Believing in good and bad is the same as believing in god. It isn’t real. It isn’t a part of the universe. It isn’t based on logic or reason. It does not exist as part of a supernatural-less universe. Period. I’m am only stating a fact. If you are really an atheist, you must deny good and evil.[/quote]

Sure I can value things over others things.

I make choices based on what brings me the most happiness and what minimizes my suffering. Living in a society I give value to things that increase the happiness of society (including myself), and minimize suffering.

I don’t believe in good and bad supernatural forces being at work.

116

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ironically, without god, discrimination against atheists can’t be called bad.[/quote]

Why is that? Because then everyone would be an atheist?[/quote]

Because in a world without the supernatural good and bad don’t exist. No one outcome can be said to be any better than another.

[/quote]

That’s not true.

Living in a society we would come to the conclusion certain acts are good and others are bad. I don’t want to have my possessions stolen and you don’t either so we would agree stealing is bad and thus enforce a law against theft.

You don’t need some supernatural god to tell you what is good and what is bad.[/quote]

I never said a god had to tell you anything. I said good and bad themselves are supernatural. You can come to the conclusion that genetics and evolution arrived at our current behavior and view, but you cannot value anything over anything else without and appeal to the supernatural.

Believing in good and bad is the same as believing in god. It isn’t real. It isn’t a part of the universe. It isn’t based on logic or reason. It does not exist as part of a supernatural-less universe. Period. I’m am only stating a fact. If you are really an atheist, you must deny good and evil.[/quote]

Sure I can value things over others things.

I make choices based on what brings me the most happiness and what minimizes my suffering. Living in a society I give value to things that increase the happiness of society (including myself), and minimize suffering.

I don’t believe in good and bad supernatural forces being at work.

[/quote]

Why is happiness good and suffering bad?

Without the supernatural, you cannot call them good or bad, you can only answer you tend toward one over the other due to genetics and conditioning. One is not more desirable, because you have reduced desire to a chemical reaction and NOTHING more.

117

If you tell your family you love them instead of “I have an evolutionary developed chemical reaction in my brain that makes me tend to want to protect you and being around you releases a chemical that makes me feel like I?m eating a lot of chocolate”, you aren?t a real atheist.

118

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ironically, without god, discrimination against atheists can’t be called bad.[/quote]

Why is that? Because then everyone would be an atheist?[/quote]

Because in a world without the supernatural good and bad don’t exist. No one outcome can be said to be any better than another.

[/quote]

That’s not true.

Living in a society we would come to the conclusion certain acts are good and others are bad. I don’t want to have my possessions stolen and you don’t either so we would agree stealing is bad and thus enforce a law against theft.

You don’t need some supernatural god to tell you what is good and what is bad.[/quote]

I never said a god had to tell you anything. I said good and bad themselves are supernatural. You can come to the conclusion that genetics and evolution arrived at our current behavior and view, but you cannot value anything over anything else without and appeal to the supernatural.

Believing in good and bad is the same as believing in god. It isn’t real. It isn’t a part of the universe. It isn’t based on logic or reason. It does not exist as part of a supernatural-less universe. Period. I’m am only stating a fact. If you are really an atheist, you must deny good and evil.[/quote]

Sure I can value things over others things.

I make choices based on what brings me the most happiness and what minimizes my suffering. Living in a society I give value to things that increase the happiness of society (including myself), and minimize suffering.

I don’t believe in good and bad supernatural forces being at work.

[/quote]

Why is happiness good and suffering bad?

Without the supernatural, you cannot call them good or bad, you can only answer you tend toward one over the other due to genetics and conditioning. One is not more desirable, because you have reduced desire to a chemical reaction and NOTHING more.[/quote]

Happiness is good and suffering is bad because I decided so with my mind.

I think you’re just harping on wording. Good and Bad are used in regular everyday language to describe many things without the intention of referring to anything supernatural.

119

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you tell your family you love them instead of “I have an evolutionary developed chemical reaction in my brain that makes me tend to want to protect you and being around you releases a chemical that makes me feel like I?m eating a lot of chocolate”, you aren?t a real atheist.[/quote]

lol

This so dumb, just because I recognize emotions are nothing more than a chemical reaction does not mean i have to avoid the words love, hate or whatever else. That’s just asinine.

120

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I know hawking has one where the universe could come from gravity, but that wouldn’t be the beginning, because gravity would have to exist first.[/quote]

Agreed.

Also, people like to talk about the Big Bang as if it is an answer to the question of existence or somehow even circumvents the Cosmological proofs. It isn’t, and it doesn’t. There is no plausible theory of which I am aware that justifies the belief that the Big Bang happened without having been prompted to happen by a precedent force.