Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

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]

Simple, it has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding, it’t not about filling in the gaps with “God”. It is about deducing that God exists using a priori logic. It deduces that there must necessarily be an uncaused-cause. Something that can cause, but in it self cannot be caused, it necessarily sits out side the causal chain.
The cosmological argument isn’t some much a singular argument, but an argument form. It is not flawed in at all it’s logic and deduction are as philosophically solid as any argument can be.
The only caveat, and most agnostics and athiests who argue against it use this, it that it is impossible to prove all the premises absolutely true; no matter how likely. It’s simply knowledge that is flat unavailable. This leaves the atheist a tiny window to argue against and many times have painted themselves in to corners doing so, like Hume’s argument for a third element in causation or some have even argued that causation does not exist, only moments in time, etc.
The cosmological argument, in it’s eloquent simplicity has survived 2 millenniums of counter arguments still emerging unrefuted. You can try some different angles in counter arguing, but cosmology as a flawed argument is not one of them. The argument is solid, you have to prove it’s actually wrong, that’s a whole other ball game.

202

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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?

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

But given that the argument was 'All things that exists have been begotten by a predecessor. Logically, an infinite regress cannot exist because it begs the question. ’

You are doing exactly what I said, finding the gaps in your own understanding and saying “God Did It”.

203

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

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?

Simple, it has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding, it’t not about filling in the gaps with “God”. It is about deducing that God exists using a priori logic. It deduces that there must necessarily be an uncaused-cause. Something that can cause, but in it self cannot be caused, it necessarily sits out side the causal chain.
The cosmological argument isn’t some much a singular argument, but an argument form. It is not flawed in at all it’s logic and deduction are as philosophically solid as any argument can be.
The only caveat, and most agnostics and athiests who argue against it use this, it that it is impossible to prove all the premises absolutely true; no matter how likely. It’s simply knowledge that is flat unavailable. This leaves the atheist a tiny window to argue against and many times have painted themselves in to corners doing so, like Hume’s argument for a third element in causation or some have even argued that causation does not exist, only moments in time, etc.
The cosmological argument, in it’s eloquent simplicity has survived 2 millenniums of counter arguments still emerging unrefuted. You can try some different angles in counter arguing, but cosmology as a flawed argument is not one of them. The argument is solid, you have to prove it’s actually wrong, that’s a whole other ball game.[/quote]

The cosmological argument is not even an argument. It is religious people making up a fairy godfather to fix the gaps in science they don’t understand and then sticking their fingers in their ears and going “LALALALALALALALALAL” the second anyone with any reasoning ability points out the huge gaping hole in their argument.

It doesn’t prove their is a God, it proves how self deluding religious people are.

204

[quote]pat wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

You SAID Atheists are worse, you SAID God answers everything. Quite frankly, you are full of shit and don’t like facts. You’ll invariably bring up the same 3-4 people as examples of atheism gone wrong, then claim victory while ignoring basically every theocracy to have ever existed.

205

Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority.

206

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority. [/quote]

16% of the USA is a bigger minority than Jews or gays.

207

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority.

16% of the USA is a bigger minority than Jews or gays.[/quote]

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

208

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority.

16% of the USA is a bigger minority than Jews or gays.

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.[/quote]

Because a lot of Atheists even today have to keep quiet about it for fear of persecution.

209

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority.

16% of the USA is a bigger minority than Jews or gays.

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

Because a lot of Atheists even today have to keep quiet about it for fear of persecution.[/quote]

Persecution or not, the religious have been the significant majorty. And despite my teasing about the coming Ahteiocalypse, the religious will always be a significant majority. So, drawing up lists to compare is pointless. And painting a picture of Atheistic utopia is at best silly.

210

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some of you are forgetting atheists have been, by far, a minority.

16% of the USA is a bigger minority than Jews or gays.

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.[/quote]

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.

211

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.[/quote]

Bringing what up?

212

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.

Bringing what up?[/quote]

The whole ‘atheists psychos killed more people than religious psychos’ schtick.

213

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.

Bringing what up?

The whole ‘atheists psychos killed more people than religious psychos’ schtick.
[/quote]

Why?

214

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.

Bringing what up?

The whole ‘atheists psychos killed more people than religious psychos’ schtick.

Why?[/quote]

I’ve been through it with pat quite recently so I’m sure you can find my reasons quite easily.If it’s too much bother,I understand.Carry on.

215

I’ll give the short version, people focus on the difference: religious / atheist, instead of focussing on the similarity: Psycho

216

Well if you can give me a logical answer, as to how with your own sciences evolution or creation, or whatever you want to argue started the universe if nothing started the process.

217

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well if you can give me a logical answer, as to how with your own sciences evolution or creation, or whatever you want to argue started the universe if nothing started the process.[/quote]

Or you could admit we don’t know.

218

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

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?

Simple, it has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding, it’t not about filling in the gaps with “God”. It is about deducing that God exists using a priori logic. It deduces that there must necessarily be an uncaused-cause. Something that can cause, but in it self cannot be caused, it necessarily sits out side the causal chain.
The cosmological argument isn’t some much a singular argument, but an argument form. It is not flawed in at all it’s logic and deduction are as philosophically solid as any argument can be.
The only caveat, and most agnostics and athiests who argue against it use this, it that it is impossible to prove all the premises absolutely true; no matter how likely. It’s simply knowledge that is flat unavailable. This leaves the atheist a tiny window to argue against and many times have painted themselves in to corners doing so, like Hume’s argument for a third element in causation or some have even argued that causation does not exist, only moments in time, etc.
The cosmological argument, in it’s eloquent simplicity has survived 2 millenniums of counter arguments still emerging unrefuted. You can try some different angles in counter arguing, but cosmology as a flawed argument is not one of them. The argument is solid, you have to prove it’s actually wrong, that’s a whole other ball game.

The cosmological argument is not even an argument. It is religious people making up a fairy godfather to fix the gaps in science they don’t understand and then sticking their fingers in their ears and going “LALALALALALALALALAL” the second anyone with any reasoning ability points out the huge gaping hole in their argument.

It doesn’t prove their is a God, it proves how self deluding religious people are.[/quote]

This was the best you can do? Seriously? You try to prove a argument wrong by just saying it’s wrong?

Let’s see if you can do better…How is is a fairy tale? What are the holes? Generally one has to back up what one says with either fact or reason, lets see you you can actually do either.

219

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Doesn’t change my point. And, historically, I’d say it’s been much less, worldwide. So yeah, there’s not going to be a whole lot of known and notable atheist figures are regimes to point to. Which is why the same one’s continue to pop in this discussion.

It’s a horribly flawed argument to keep bringing up and it does you position no favors to keep regurgitating it.

Bringing what up?

The whole ‘atheists psychos killed more people than religious psychos’ schtick.
[/quote]

It depends on what the argument is. If one is arguing that people of religious faith have committed the worst atrocities in human history, that argument can be debunked by historical fact, very easily.
If you are arguing that because religious people done bad things there for all religion is a fairly tale, irrelevant and false in it’s belief, then the argument is very flawed.

In this case it was a pissing contest, atheist contention that all Catholics are sexual predators because some people in the church did bad things…Well, I’ll be damned if I am going to let them sweep under the rug the massive crimes against humanity that athiests did. You bring up one, I’ll bring up the other, every time with out fail…If it’s brought up agian I will retort again, 'case when it comes to doing evil things in the world, nobody has ever beaten atheists, they are the kings of human misery on earth.

220

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well if you can give me a logical answer, as to how with your own sciences evolution or creation, or whatever you want to argue started the universe if nothing started the process.

Or you could admit we don’t know.[/quote]

Okay you don’t know, however I do have reason to believe that God is where it started. In the Old Testament it says God created the earth. Given this reason in the Bible God is an uncaused-cause, coming from the Alpha and the Omega. He is the highest being, nothing is greater.

So concluding with that information on God that means that God was never created, he just has always been. So, whoever pointed out the cause theory, that all the effects throughout the world needed a cause, but in order for something to move, it needed something to set it in motion, and the only way theoretically is if something which always has been and nothing came before it except itself, started this chain of events. And that starts at God. At least for me.