Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.

“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.

I am educated,and that isn’t where he is wrong.It’s the second part of the statement that needs correcting.Why do you not tackle that?For any of the great atrocities committed by men on other men,you can always follow the corrupting influence of power and overwhelming material greed.Add to that a smidge of the psycopathy found in all despots and you have what you need.The political or religious system used is a tool to be exploited to achieve whatever the twisted goal may be.

I’m not a religious man in the slightest,but I also find the statement Mak makes as regards which is better than what at the beginning of his post appalling.
[/quote]

I agree, whilst I have issues with religion due to its basic concepts and what I perceive to be a lack of intellectual integrity involved in its reasoning and development it doesn’t necessarily lead to evil anymore than atheism automatically leads to good.

The best intentions can lead to evil and the worst selfishness can actually lead to good.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.
[/quote]
Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a beleif there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

[quote]
I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.[/quote]

Ok, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

[/quote]

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

[quote]

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God. [/quote]

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

[Deorum]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
doogie wrote:
In these cases, the step-father, if he did rape her, I think he should be stoned to death like in Hebrew times. [/quote]

really? why would you want a man to be stoned to death? sorry if i missed your explanation or logic behind this idea.

[Makavali]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.

“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.

I am educated,and that isn’t where he is wrong.It’s the second part of the statement that needs correcting.Why do you not tackle that?For any of the great atrocities committed by men on other men,you can always follow the corrupting influence of power and overwhelming material greed.Add to that a smidge of the psycopathy found in all despots and you have what you need.The political or religious system used is a tool to be exploited to achieve whatever the twisted goal may be.

I’m not a religious man in the slightest,but I also find the statement Mak makes as regards which is better than what at the beginning of his post appalling.
[/quote]

What I’m saying is that people who might have otherwise not done something twisted do so because their holy book permits it. Want to get laid? Just rape a bitch and say if was in defense of Islam. Want to kill? Go torch an abortion clinic and shoot the doctor, all in the name of Gods will.

Quite simply, religion is no way to dictate moral behavior. We haven’t spent enough time as a society studying ethics properly outside of religion because people of “faith” constantly try to shit all over any attempt to remove their security blanket (God) from the picture.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.

“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.

I am educated,and that isn’t where he is wrong.It’s the second part of the statement that needs correcting.Why do you not tackle that?For any of the great atrocities committed by men on other men,you can always follow the corrupting influence of power and overwhelming material greed.Add to that a smidge of the psycopathy found in all despots and you have what you need.The political or religious system used is a tool to be exploited to achieve whatever the twisted goal may be.

I’m not a religious man in the slightest,but I also find the statement Mak makes as regards which is better than what at the beginning of his post appalling.

What I’m saying is that people who might have otherwise not done something twisted do so because their holy book permits it. Want to get laid? Just rape a bitch and say if was in defense of Islam. Want to kill? Go torch an abortion clinic and shoot the doctor, all in the name of Gods will.

Quite simply, religion is no way to dictate moral behavior. We haven’t spent enough time as a society studying ethics properly outside of religion because people of “faith” constantly try to shit all over any attempt to remove their security blanket (God) from the picture.[/quote]

And they may have found another way to justify whatever behavior they want to indulge in.We’ll never know.For example,in Central Africa,where rape is a weapon of war and dominance,religion doesn’t factor into it.I know many devout religious people-Jews,Catholics,Mormons,Protestants and a few others.I have found those people to be examples of good,decent human beings.None of them have ever tried to convert me to whatever their view may be,but we have healthy debates over their,and my,beliefs.I have also met some rather unpleasant pieces of work who professed to be devout ‘insert religion here’.So do I tar the others who are by any measure,religious or secular,good human beings, with the same brush I use to on the worthless oxygen thieves because they happen to share a religion on the surface?

I prefer to hold the individual accountable for his/or her actions.Is radical Islam a problem? Yes,in as far as its doctrines are just too out there from accepted norms of what constitutes civilized behavior in the West.The answer?Let them stay in the M.E. ,we get the fuck out and immigration gets ratcheted down to acceptable levels where the people that emigrate to the West accept the current prevailing social standards and mores and they fit in or fuck off.

So while I definitely think religion is not the only ethical/moral system that works,it happens to be the one of the biggest ones in place.And by any measure,apart from some fucking loonies like Mel Gibson and some Charismatic Evangelical bible thumpers and Islamic fundamentalists,most religions adapt,change and flow with the times,even if the pace is not to your liking.That coupled with my fervent belief in a separation of Church and State,makes me cringe of thinking about throwing the baby out with the bath water,just because we want a comfy one size fits all label for acts of barbarity.

[Sloth]

Thought this spoke volumes.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/5-best-things-2012s-direc.php

[Neuromancer]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thought this spoke volumes.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/5-best-things-2012s-direc.php [/quote]

That is so ball-less it’s just depressing.

[Sloth]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Thought this spoke volumes.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/5-best-things-2012s-direc.php

That is so ball-less it’s just depressing.[/quote]

I think it instructs us Christians that we need to take some respect back. If we’re viewed as being pretty much in the same league as Islam today, maybe we should live up to expectations. Surely, for a good many ‘fight the good fight atheists’ this would be welcomed, secretively. That is, even if they don’t want to admit it.

Look, it’s gotta be boring constantly lampooning us in popular media, and blowing our sites up on the big screen, without a crusade being organized. Maybe it’s time to organize one. To the benefit of both sides. Think of the way cool, totally awesome, underground atheist media that would pop up. The blackmarket atheist propaganda dvd’s. Dangerous tracts featuring resistance leaders, like Dawkins and Hitchens. Secretive clubs and social gatherings in cellars and attics. Secret messages left as graffiti in public places. Waaaaaaay cool!

Be honest guys, what are you left with today? “Did you see that movie review on that Christian web site? They advised that the movie wasn’t christian friendly! Oh venerable Dawkins, how long must we suffer under this oppression! Anyways, I heard there’s going to be another movie coming out where they blow up a monstary, a Lutheran Charity, and a Baptist BBQ. They can’t silence the resistance!”

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

[/quote]

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything?

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.

“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.

I am educated,and that isn’t where he is wrong.It’s the second part of the statement that needs correcting.Why do you not tackle that?For any of the great atrocities committed by men on other men,you can always follow the corrupting influence of power and overwhelming material greed.Add to that a smidge of the psycopathy found in all despots and you have what you need.The political or religious system used is a tool to be exploited to achieve whatever the twisted goal may be.

I’m not a religious man in the slightest,but I also find the statement Mak makes as regards which is better than what at the beginning of his post appalling.

What I’m saying is that people who might have otherwise not done something twisted do so because their holy book permits it. Want to get laid? Just rape a bitch and say if was in defense of Islam. Want to kill? Go torch an abortion clinic and shoot the doctor, all in the name of Gods will.

Quite simply, religion is no way to dictate moral behavior. We haven’t spent enough time as a society studying ethics properly outside of religion because people of “faith” constantly try to shit all over any attempt to remove their security blanket (God) from the picture.[/quote]

What you are saying is based on pure bias and on zero fact. If you want to live in a wonderland where you can just make up your own reality, go ahead. You are here clearly just to insult religious people. Making shit up doesn’t count as fact, even if you really, really believe it.
Whack jobs are going to do awful things religious or not. People do bad things…Atheists have done the worst in history by a looooong way, if you want a pissing contest on who is worse.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything? [/quote]

Pi.

The reason you cannot answer these questions is mainly you do not have a good enough understanding of quantum physics. Matter bursts into being and blips out again millions of times a second as long as it is balanced by anti-matter there is no issue. Read up on quantum tunneling.

The whole matter cannot be created or destroyed thing is a misnomer. All that the first law of thermodynamics postulates is that the total amount of matter in a closed system is constant.

The universe as we know it came into being at the moment of the big bang but this doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist in a different form before hand. Also, who is to say that the Universe is a closed system. Possibly the whole known Universe is a quantum expansion of a tiny part of a larger system.

And anyway, at the end of the day, none of this points to God. And God doesn’t solve the problem because if you claim God is the cause, what caused God? You have just moved the issue not solved it.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything?

Pi.

The reason you cannot answer these questions is mainly you do not have a good enough understanding of quantum physics. Matter bursts into being and blips out again millions of times a second as long as it is balanced by anti-matter there is no issue. Read up on quantum tunneling.

The whole matter cannot be created or destroyed thing is a misnomer. All that the first law of thermodynamics postulates is that the total amount of matter in a closed system is constant.

The universe as we know it came into being at the moment of the big bang but this doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist in a different form before hand. Also, who is to say that the Universe is a closed system. Possibly the whole known Universe is a quantum expansion of a tiny part of a larger system.

And anyway, at the end of the day, none of this points to God. And God doesn’t solve the problem because if you claim God is the cause, what caused God? You have just moved the issue not solved it.[/quote]

Sure it does your just not thinking about it. All things that exists have been begotten by a predecessor. Logically, an infinite regress cannot exist because it begs the question. The first cause cannot be caused by definition, otherwise it wouldn’t be the initial cause. It doesn’t move the problem it solves the equation.
Just drop you premonitions for a minute an think at least hypothetically what such a “thing” must be like. What properties would and uncaused cause have to have in order to be one:
For one, it cannot be caused. Hence it must be able to cause with out being caused. It therefore must posses some property of will. There is no evidence of complete random accidents anywhere in the universe. Only materials and patterns.
Second all that came from it, it must first have possessed. In other words all the properties and events that exist, where part of it. All things it created are therefore part of it as well.
There’s more, but I am out of time…If you really want to warp your brain and you are truly into seeking the truth and not merely out to mock those who have thoughtfully come to a different conclusion than your self, just Google the “cosmological argument” and read the points and counter points. Many focus on the Kalam argument which is probably the least thought out version.
Aristotle discovered the first iteration. A man who had no connection or inspiration from any monotheistic religion. He came of it by pure reason. Of course he did have little things to deal with like general relativity and such trumping his notion of time, but he argument from contingency deals with this.

The bottom line of the argument is that all that exists came from something vs. all that exists came from nothing…It really is just that simple. There is not evidence anywhere in the known universe where this is true. Everything has an origin.
The laws of thermodynamics gets trumped by the laws of gravity, particularly are they pertain to matter dense enough to create gravity strong enough to crush the basic building blocks of all matter, I.E. black holes as theorized in the theory of general relativity.

[Makavali]

1. Saying God did it is a cop out, and you know it. You giving an arbitrary answer with no proof or definable origin (lost to time, an unfortunate side effect of bronze age myths that are passed down by word of mouth) and not seeking anything more.

2. Bullshit on the atheists being worse call. You’re so full of shit that when you die, we could give you an enema and bury you in a match box. If you want to stuff your ears and pretend witch burnings, blood libel, the Crusades, and countless other atrocities didn’t happen, then that’s your fucking problem. Don’t spread your history denying here.

The root problem, is that Dogma and Ideology which must be obeyed without question, lead inevitably to horrors. The precedents, both religious and secular are legion. Religion is merely a subset of the primary concept. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking.

Sam Harris hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.

So what is it that I have a big problem with? DOGMA. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.html [/quote]

The nut who shot up Fort Hood was a Christian, wasn’t he?

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

1. Saying God did it is a cop out, and you know it. You giving an arbitrary answer with no proof or definable origin (lost to time, an unfortunate side effect of bronze age myths that are passed down by word of mouth) and not seeking anything more.

2. Bullshit on the atheists being worse call. You’re so full of shit that when you die, we could give you an enema and bury you in a match box. If you want to stuff your ears and pretend witch burnings, blood libel, the Crusades, and countless other atrocities didn’t happen, then that’s your fucking problem. Don’t spread your history denying here.

The root problem, is that Dogma and Ideology which must be obeyed without question, lead inevitably to horrors. The precedents, both religious and secular are legion. Religion is merely a subset of the primary concept. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking.

Sam Harris hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.

So what is it that I have a big problem with? DOGMA. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.[/quote]

Why don’t you get educated on the matter before discussing it. You sound like an idiot, none of what you said is a retort to anything I said because I did not say those things. You are responding to things in you imagination, not based in any reality or any of the arguments I made. You wanna be a history deny atheist, go right the fuck ahead. Just don’t waste my fucking time arguing about crap you think I said or meant, that I did not say or mean.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.html

The nut who shot up Fort Hood was a Christian, wasn’t he?

[/quote]

Not sure, was he an Atheist by any chance?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything?

Pi.

The reason you cannot answer these questions is mainly you do not have a good enough understanding of quantum physics. Matter bursts into being and blips out again millions of times a second as long as it is balanced by anti-matter there is no issue. Read up on quantum tunneling.

The whole matter cannot be created or destroyed thing is a misnomer. All that the first law of thermodynamics postulates is that the total amount of matter in a closed system is constant.

The universe as we know it came into being at the moment of the big bang but this doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist in a different form before hand. Also, who is to say that the Universe is a closed system. Possibly the whole known Universe is a quantum expansion of a tiny part of a larger system.

And anyway, at the end of the day, none of this points to God. And God doesn’t solve the problem because if you claim God is the cause, what caused God? You have just moved the issue not solved it.

Sure it does your just not thinking about it. All things that exists have been begotten by a predecessor. Logically, an infinite regress cannot exist because it begs the question. The first cause cannot be caused by definition, otherwise it wouldn’t be the initial cause. It doesn’t move the problem it solves the equation.
Just drop you premonitions for a minute an think at least hypothetically what such a “thing” must be like. What properties would and uncaused cause have to have in order to be one:
For one, it cannot be caused. Hence it must be able to cause with out being caused. It therefore must posses some property of will. There is no evidence of complete random accidents anywhere in the universe. Only materials and patterns.
Second all that came from it, it must first have possessed. In other words all the properties and events that exist, where part of it. All things it created are therefore part of it as well.
There’s more, but I am out of time…If you really want to warp your brain and you are truly into seeking the truth and not merely out to mock those who have thoughtfully come to a different conclusion than your self, just Google the “cosmological argument” and read the points and counter points. Many focus on the Kalam argument which is probably the least thought out version.
Aristotle discovered the first iteration. A man who had no connection or inspiration from any monotheistic religion. He came of it by pure reason. Of course he did have little things to deal with like general relativity and such trumping his notion of time, but he argument from contingency deals with this.

The bottom line of the argument is that all that exists came from something vs. all that exists came from nothing…It really is just that simple. There is not evidence anywhere in the known universe where this is true. Everything has an origin.
The laws of thermodynamics gets trumped by the laws of gravity, particularly are they pertain to matter dense enough to create gravity strong enough to crush the basic building blocks of all matter, I.E. black holes as theorized in the theory of general relativity.

[/quote]

Please explain how your argument differs from ‘I don’t understand this so I will say that God did it.’

And why would the cosmological argument blow my mind? It is deeply flawed and also leaves theists in exactly the same position as they claimm, incorrectly, that atheists are, now they have a cause but what caused the cause? What caused God?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything?

Pi.

The reason you cannot answer these questions is mainly you do not have a good enough understanding of quantum physics. Matter bursts into being and blips out again millions of times a second as long as it is balanced by anti-matter there is no issue. Read up on quantum tunneling.

The whole matter cannot be created or destroyed thing is a misnomer. All that the first law of thermodynamics postulates is that the total amount of matter in a closed system is constant.

The universe as we know it came into being at the moment of the big bang but this doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist in a different form before hand. Also, who is to say that the Universe is a closed system. Possibly the whole known Universe is a quantum expansion of a tiny part of a larger system.

And anyway, at the end of the day, none of this points to God. And God doesn’t solve the problem because if you claim God is the cause, what caused God? You have just moved the issue not solved it.

Sure it does your just not thinking about it. All things that exists have been begotten by a predecessor. Logically, an infinite regress cannot exist because it begs the question. The first cause cannot be caused by definition, otherwise it wouldn’t be the initial cause. It doesn’t move the problem it solves the equation.
Just drop you premonitions for a minute an think at least hypothetically what such a “thing” must be like. What properties would and uncaused cause have to have in order to be one:
For one, it cannot be caused. Hence it must be able to cause with out being caused. It therefore must posses some property of will. There is no evidence of complete random accidents anywhere in the universe. Only materials and patterns.
Second all that came from it, it must first have possessed. In other words all the properties and events that exist, where part of it. All things it created are therefore part of it as well.
There’s more, but I am out of time…If you really want to warp your brain and you are truly into seeking the truth and not merely out to mock those who have thoughtfully come to a different conclusion than your self, just Google the “cosmological argument” and read the points and counter points. Many focus on the Kalam argument which is probably the least thought out version.
Aristotle discovered the first iteration. A man who had no connection or inspiration from any monotheistic religion. He came of it by pure reason. Of course he did have little things to deal with like general relativity and such trumping his notion of time, but he argument from contingency deals with this.

The bottom line of the argument is that all that exists came from something vs. all that exists came from nothing…It really is just that simple. There is not evidence anywhere in the known universe where this is true. Everything has an origin.
The laws of thermodynamics gets trumped by the laws of gravity, particularly are they pertain to matter dense enough to create gravity strong enough to crush the basic building blocks of all matter, I.E. black holes as theorized in the theory of general relativity.

Please explain how your argument differs from ‘I don’t understand this so I will say that God did it.’

And why would the cosmological argument blow my mind? It is deeply flawed and also leaves theists in exactly the same position as they claimm, incorrectly, that atheists are, now they have a cause but what caused the cause? What caused God?[/quote]

It is called the Uncaused causer. Nothing caused it, it has always been and always will be. Alpha and the Omega.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.

Erm, no.

Do you have a dictionary definition of some sort that define atheism as a disbelief in God vs. a belief there is no God? If you leave room for the possibility of God to exist, you are agnostic. Words mean things, you can just change the definition.

I just posted your definition and showed that atheism means disbelief (doubt about the truth of) in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The route of the word makes this blindingly obvious atheos meaning godless or without god.

An asexual person doesn’t totally deny the possibility of the existence of sex, they are just without sexual characteristics.

Agnostic comes from a different route, it is referring to whether total knowledge of a subject is possible it doesn’t necessarily relate to religion. Someone can be both Atheist and Agnostic with respect to religion. You can also be Agnostic and a Christian.

Unfortunately people layer additional meaning onto words due to a lack of basic understanding of English and we end up with a situation where people see Atheist, Agnostic and Religious as three stages on a continuum.

I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?

Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.

OK, where did the universe come from? What give matter mass? What happens to “information” in a black whole? Why does the universe operate according the laws, where did the laws come from? What is the universal building block of all matter and where did it come from?

If you find me that which is not begotten, you’ve found God.

There are good theories that answer every single one of the questions you ask and even if there weren’t it is intellectually lazy to fill the gaps with God did it. That is not evidence it is ignorance.

Boy you missed that one by a mile. You are seeking to use God as an explanation for the unknown, that is not what I am asserting at all. It is that all questions of origin, in any realm, physical, or metaphysical all lead to the same place, God.
What there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for, it a perpetually existing universe, or matter without origin. Yet atheists have asserted this with out evidence as at least being plausible. Everything in the known universe is sourced. The is no evidence, at all, in any detail, in any empirical realm that shows the universe in perpetual existence. There is no evidence of it, period.

I want to know one thing that can verifiable be traced back infinitely, just one. I want to know of one thing that has no origin. Got anything?

Pi.

The reason you cannot answer these questions is mainly you do not have a good enough understanding of quantum physics. Matter bursts into being and blips out again millions of times a second as long as it is balanced by anti-matter there is no issue. Read up on quantum tunneling.

The whole matter cannot be created or destroyed thing is a misnomer. All that the first law of thermodynamics postulates is that the total amount of matter in a closed system is constant.

The universe as we know it came into being at the moment of the big bang but this doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist in a different form before hand. Also, who is to say that the Universe is a closed system. Possibly the whole known Universe is a quantum expansion of a tiny part of a larger system.

And anyway, at the end of the day, none of this points to God. And God doesn’t solve the problem because if you claim God is the cause, what caused God? You have just moved the issue not solved it.

Sure it does your just not thinking about it. All things that exists have been begotten by a predecessor. Logically, an infinite regress cannot exist because it begs the question. The first cause cannot be caused by definition, otherwise it wouldn’t be the initial cause. It doesn’t move the problem it solves the equation.
Just drop you premonitions for a minute an think at least hypothetically what such a “thing” must be like. What properties would and uncaused cause have to have in order to be one:
For one, it cannot be caused. Hence it must be able to cause with out being caused. It therefore must posses some property of will. There is no evidence of complete random accidents anywhere in the universe. Only materials and patterns.
Second all that came from it, it must first have possessed. In other words all the properties and events that exist, where part of it. All things it created are therefore part of it as well.
There’s more, but I am out of time…If you really want to warp your brain and you are truly into seeking the truth and not merely out to mock those who have thoughtfully come to a different conclusion than your self, just Google the “cosmological argument” and read the points and counter points. Many focus on the Kalam argument which is probably the least thought out version.
Aristotle discovered the first iteration. A man who had no connection or inspiration from any monotheistic religion. He came of it by pure reason. Of course he did have little things to deal with like general relativity and such trumping his notion of time, but he argument from contingency deals with this.

The bottom line of the argument is that all that exists came from something vs. all that exists came from nothing…It really is just that simple. There is not evidence anywhere in the known universe where this is true. Everything has an origin.
The laws of thermodynamics gets trumped by the laws of gravity, particularly are they pertain to matter dense enough to create gravity strong enough to crush the basic building blocks of all matter, I.E. black holes as theorized in the theory of general relativity.

Please explain how your argument differs from ‘I don’t understand this so I will say that God did it.’

And why would the cosmological argument blow my mind? It is deeply flawed and also leaves theists in exactly the same position as they claimm, incorrectly, that atheists are, now they have a cause but what caused the cause? What caused God?[/quote]

Nothing, he is the highest being, he is the uncaused causer. Creator of all, the Alpha and the Omega.