Pat is right you know, luckily he likes arguing with atheists a lot so he must not think we are stupid.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It is a silly fiction, it requires belief in something from nothing. It requires belief in randomness.[/quote]
Thanks for illustrating your willful ignorance of atheism.
[/quote]
Prove me wrong… We’ve been over this, remember. Kicking the metaphysical can down the road doesn’t solve the problem, neither does introducing strawmen, which is what you did previously.
So if you got a new incorrect theory, I’d love to hear it.[/quote]
Your understanding of atheism is fucked up at such a basic level, that you should be embarrassed to say that you’ve ever “studied” it. Seriously, if you invested any money into that study, I would demand it back and curse them for frauds and scheisters.
Atheism is not a belief in anything at all, and certainly does not require that I believe in “something from nothing” or “randomness”. An atheist is a person who sees no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural, and rejects the notion as originating from ignorance. Atheists have the humility to say “I don’t know”, and the intelligence to say “probably wasn’t a sky wizard”. Simply put, atheists take a hard, unflinching look at the facts, and rightfully reject the ignorant notion of god. In the absence of knowledge, an atheist is unwilling to turn to stories of mythology and god magic.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
They way dumber that believing in virgin birth, or transubstantiation. How do you know it didn’t happen? Where you there?[/quote]
Awesome, haven’t heard this defense of patently stupid shit since fourth or fifth grade. LOL
Pat: “Jesus walked on water, and Moses talked to a burning bush, and Mary birthed jesus without having sex”
Atheist: “Yea, I highly doubt that.”
Pat: “How do you know!? You weren’t there!”
Atheist: “Were you?”
[/quote]
No I wasn’t, but I am not claiming everything I didn’t perceive with my 5 senses isn’t true. Truth is you accept all of history based on hearsay. So you can’t really know anything you weren’t present for. And you cannot prove anything you were present for is a complete delusion. There is very little you can actually know. If you did any real study on the matter, you’d know that.[/quote]
So the only thing history is based on is hearsay? LOL…sure.
WWII? Must’ve been hearsay. Civil war? Just a load of hearsay. Roman Empire? Bah!..just a bunch of bullshit hearsay. The whole civil war thingy? Yup, just hearsay.
HERP…DERP. DERRRRR…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< Perhaps I should start reading the ol’ good book again >>>[/quote]I couldn’t possibly recommend this most splendid course of action highly enough Sparky. try this for a computer based outfit that’s totally free and utterly first rate. Grab the ESV translation as that is also free and very reliable. http://www.theword.net/bin/get.php/esv2011.ontx.exe For different reasons, I don’t view Pat as very much more reliable on what the bible says than you are. However he’s right. You don’t understand it. It is ancient literature that as such requires a bit more than the Dr. Seuss/entirely ill informed, hack hater site method to grasp. That said? Those who DO take the time TO understand it, despite some significant differences, come to astonishingly similar conclusions.
[/quote]
I’d like to get my hands on a copy of the “Jefferson Bible”, where he removed all references to the supernatural, the “miracles”, etc. That might’ve been an interesting read.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]
Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html [/quote]
Hey, I’m just quoting for you what your holy book says. Not my fault that it says the awful shit that it says.
Words mean things, and it says what it says. Christians seem to spend ALOT of time trying to justify and argue away what’s written in the bible.
[/quote]
Great point, “Words mean things.” Then you turn around and get upset that Christians try and make distinctions and put things into context. Strange fellow you are. I think that’s called hypocrisy when you have a double standard. [/quote]
No, what most christians are guilty of, is spin, not contextual explanation. This is why your bible has “evolved” over the years with new interpretations and such. What version of the bible do you subscribe to? Isn’t there like 26 versions of it?
And when a christian comes along saying that the bible says what it says, then you’ll denounce them as “fundamentalist”.
LOL…Trying to apologize and spin away the shit in the bible must be what it’s like as a PR person in charge of handling Joe Biden. “No no, what Biden really meant was…”
[/quote]
I think it’s hilarious when people who have never read the bible try to claim to know what the bible says! LOL!
Hey I never read ‘War and Peace’ but I know it talks about war!
You should do a book club with the rule that you don’t actually read the books, then talk about the books with authority! That will make you look like a fucking genius![/quote]
I think it’s hilarious how upset christians get when atheists point out all the immoral, evil verses in the bible. First thing out of their mouth; “you don’t undersand it!”, or “that’s out of context!”
I also think it’s hilarious that you’re constantly accusing atheists of not understanding christianity, when you clearly do not understand atheism. At least atheists read the holy books of many religions; they make an effort to understand the minds of the religious. How many atheist authors have you read?
[/quote]
I have actually studied quite a few since philosophy was a formal study, I was require to study atheists and theists alike. Hume was my favorite atheist of all time.
That being said, what I don’t claim is intricate knowledge of books I didn’t read, which is what you are doing.
Refuting atheist philosophy is not a challenge for me, I have been doing it for many years…
Bring your freshest thinking, I will cheerfully explain why you’re wrong. All of this shit is nothing new, it is in fact very old, actually it’s eternal if you understand anything about metaphysics.
[/quote]
I’ve never claimed such intricate knowledge either, however I do often quote atheists with such intricate knowledge, as well as direct quotes from the bible itself. Never once have I personally claimed to be a biblical expert. Interesting though that your defense of the bible always seems to end at “You don’t KNOW the bible!”, or “You’ve never read the bible cover to cover!”.
However I HAVE read the bible, albiet never cover to cover. Not that it would matter if I did; you’d just say that I never understood it, or that I read the wrong interpretation, or that it’s not a book for atheists, or blah blah blah whatever else excuse you’d pull out of your ass.
Perhaps I should start reading the ol’ good book again; I enjoy Greek mythology, why wouldn’t I enjoy christian mythology?
[/quote]
You read atheist mythology, so why not?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]
Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html [/quote]
Hey, I’m just quoting for you what your holy book says. Not my fault that it says the awful shit that it says.
Words mean things, and it says what it says. Christians seem to spend ALOT of time trying to justify and argue away what’s written in the bible.
[/quote]
Great point, “Words mean things.” Then you turn around and get upset that Christians try and make distinctions and put things into context. Strange fellow you are. I think that’s called hypocrisy when you have a double standard. [/quote]
No, what most christians are guilty of, is spin, not contextual explanation. This is why your bible has “evolved” over the years with new interpretations and such. What version of the bible do you subscribe to? Isn’t there like 26 versions of it?
And when a christian comes along saying that the bible says what it says, then you’ll denounce them as “fundamentalist”.
LOL…Trying to apologize and spin away the shit in the bible must be what it’s like as a PR person in charge of handling Joe Biden. “No no, what Biden really meant was…”
[/quote]
What most atheists are guilty of is tortured reasoning and an utter lack of reason and logic…The sad part is they think they have it, but they cannot reason anything to it’s logical end, because their logic fails. It’s all ego in the end.[/quote]
Yea, that’s it, the ATHEISTS just aren’t big fans of reason and logic. Tell me again about the talking snake…
[/quote]
Sure, when you tell me how nothing makes something.
Why are you interested in it if you think it’s so stupid… Things I think are stupid I don’t waste my time with. Is there a ‘love for stupidity’ gene in the atheist brain? Must be.[/quote]
C’mon man, don’t cop out on me NOW! I think with a little more effort, perhaps you can come up with the answer. Think about it, why would atheists interest themselves in the religions of the world? Why would that be important?
[/quote]
So they can make sorry excuses for themselves? I don’t know it’s just a guess.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It is a silly fiction, it requires belief in something from nothing. It requires belief in randomness.[/quote]
Thanks for illustrating your willful ignorance of atheism.
[/quote]
Prove me wrong… We’ve been over this, remember. Kicking the metaphysical can down the road doesn’t solve the problem, neither does introducing strawmen, which is what you did previously.
So if you got a new incorrect theory, I’d love to hear it.[/quote]
Your understanding of atheism is fucked up at such a basic level, that you should be embarrassed to say that you’ve ever “studied” it. Seriously, if you invested any money into that study, I would demand it back and curse them for frauds and scheisters.
Atheism is not a belief in anything at all, and certainly does not require that I believe in “something from nothing” or “randomness”. An atheist is a person who sees no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural, and rejects the notion as originating from ignorance. Atheists have the humility to say “I don’t know”, and the intelligence to say “probably wasn’t a sky wizard”. Simply put, atheists take a hard, unflinching look at the facts, and rightfully reject the ignorant notion of god. In the absence of knowledge, an atheist is unwilling to turn to stories of mythology and god magic.
[/quote]
I’d say you do believe in quite bit of magic. Because when you eliminate all other variables, you have only two choices, either something came from something, or something came from nothing. To avoid the question is a cop out.
That’s what is required for atheism to be true, maybe you don’t know or don’t care to know whether that is true or not, but if you don’t know that, you don’t know much about atheism. The answer to that question is the core of one of the other thought processes.
You have the humility to say “I don’t know” but that’s not what you’re rally saying. What your saying is extraordinarily arrogant. What your saying is “I don’t know, but I know for damn sure it wasn’t God.” But you don’t know, you simply try to avoid the question by elevating yourself and calling names. Well, you can spray all the ad hominems you want, it ain’t going to make you suddenly right.
The fact is this: There is existence, and either something is responsible for it, or nothing is.
Being eternal doesn’t matter, this universe doesn’t matter, physical matter itself, doesn’t matter.
When you boil it down, all you have is wishful thinking. You don’t know why and really, really hope there’s no God.
Atheism / Theism is basic. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s the simplest thing in the world. Trying to make it sould elegant, doesn’t make it so. It just means you avoid the crux of the issue, which is nothing to be proud of, but you are.
No I wasn’t, but I am not claiming everything I didn’t perceive with my 5 senses isn’t true. Truth is you accept all of history based on hearsay. So you can’t really know anything you weren’t present for. And you cannot prove anything you were present for is a complete delusion. There is very little you can actually know. If you did any real study on the matter, you’d know that.[/quote]
So the only thing history is based on is hearsay? LOL…sure.
[/quote]
Yes it is.
I didn’t say it didn’t happen, I said you can’t know it for certain, and that’s a big difference.
If you were told all your life it didn’t happen, you wouldn’t know the difference. It’s hearsay.
Hearsay doesn’t mean, not true. It means you don’t have primary sources. A hole in the wall in France could have been a bullet from WW2, or it can be something else. You don’t know unless someone tells you.
You would know there was a Civil War in the U.S. unless someone tells you. That’s hearsay, hoss. DUUUUUR…
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat is right you know, luckily he likes arguing with atheists a lot so he must not think we are stupid.[/quote]
Depends on the atheist, I find most make poor arguments. Some are actually really good at it. Kamui makes excellent points. If you want half a chance, you should pay attention to his posts.
I’m thinking there might be a definitions problem here. Pat, do you have a minimum definition God as anything more than a first eternal cause?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m thinking there might be a definitions problem here. Pat, do you have a minimum definition God as anything more than a first eternal cause? [/quote]
That’s not a definition problem, it’s an understand problem. Think about what a Uncaused-cause must be, to be what it is.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m thinking there might be a definitions problem here. Pat, do you have a minimum definition God as anything more than a first eternal cause? [/quote]
That’s not a definition problem, it’s an understand problem. Think about what a Uncaused-cause must be, to be what it is. [/quote]
At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God.
[quote]pat wrote:
I’d say you do believe in quite bit of magic. Because when you eliminate all other variables, you have only two choices, either something came from something, or something came from nothing. To avoid the question is a cop out.
That’s what is required for atheism to be true, maybe you don’t know or don’t care to know whether that is true or not, but if you don’t know that, you don’t know much about atheism. The answer to that question is the core of one of the other thought processes.
You have the humility to say “I don’t know” but that’s not what you’re rally saying. What your saying is extraordinarily arrogant. What your saying is “I don’t know, but I know for damn sure it wasn’t God.” But you don’t know, you simply try to avoid the question by elevating yourself and calling names. Well, you can spray all the ad hominems you want, it ain’t going to make you suddenly right.
The fact is this: There is existence, and either something is responsible for it, or nothing is.
Being eternal doesn’t matter, this universe doesn’t matter, physical matter itself, doesn’t matter.
When you boil it down, all you have is wishful thinking. You don’t know why and really, really hope there’s no God.
Atheism / Theism is basic. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s the simplest thing in the world. Trying to make it sould elegant, doesn’t make it so. It just means you avoid the crux of the issue, which is nothing to be proud of, but you are.
[/quote]
It sounded a lot like what he was saying (and many people in that camp especially if you lump general agnostics in with atheists) is that he isn’t avoiding the question but isn’t sure as to the answer and all available factual evidence doesn’t point to one conclusion so far. If you inserted God with ancient astronauts (the whole aliens created us thing) then by proxy what you are saying is that anyone that believe that it sure as shit wasn’t aliens that made is is extremely arrogant.
Just because one doesnt understand fully (or trust in the available data) doesnt make something “not matter to them”
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[/quote]
Oh, actually this one could be argued from a strictly philosophical perspective.
One could say that epistemology and/or ontology requires the triunity of God, as an alternative to dualism and monism.
That being said, such a philosophical triunity would not be a christian trinity.
No amount of philosophy will ever reveal the identity of God.
At best, you’ll end up with a partial identikit.
@Pat.
What was before God/prime mover? didnt it come to existence from nothing?
If so, dont you have the same “problem” that you say us atheists have?
Have do you go from a Prime mover to the christian God?
Or in other words, have do you go from deism to theism?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[/quote]
Oh, actually this one could be argued from a strictly philosophical perspective.
One could say that epistemology and/or ontology requires the triunity of God, as an alternative to dualism and monism.
That being said, such a philosophical triunity would not be a christian trinity.
No amount of philosophy will ever reveal the identity of God.
At best, you’ll end up with a partial identikit.
[/quote]We went over this when discussing the problem of the one and the many. Define for me what you mean by “identity” if you would please.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[/quote]
Oh, actually this one could be argued from a strictly philosophical perspective.
One could say that epistemology and/or ontology requires the triunity of God, as an alternative to dualism and monism.
[/quote]
How difficult would this be to construct in simple English?
If you could - I’d appreciate it
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[/quote]
Oh, actually this one could be argued from a strictly philosophical perspective.
One could say that epistemology and/or ontology requires the triunity of God, as an alternative to dualism and monism.
[/quote]
How difficult would this be to construct in simple English?
If you could - I’d appreciate it[/quote]He will definitely go to the problem of the one and the many with this. The Problem of the Many (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< At minimum, an infinite intellect. Omnipotent and omniscient and eternal. Not necessarily a personal God. [/quote]Or even if a personal God, why the triune one of Christianity?
[/quote]
Oh, actually this one could be argued from a strictly philosophical perspective.
One could say that epistemology and/or ontology requires the triunity of God, as an alternative to dualism and monism.
[/quote]
How difficult would this be to construct in simple English?
If you could - I’d appreciate it[/quote]
epistomology- basically how you know anything; how is knowledge acquired and if knowledge is real or not
ontology- this is from wiki:
Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, á½?νÏ?οÏ? “being; that which is”, present participle of the verb εἰμί “be”, and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
triunity/trinity- the way that 3 gods can in fact be one God such as in Christianity you have God the father from the heavens, God the son who was a part of material existence, and God the holy spirit which breathes through everything
dualism- sort of a belief in two separate realities, like a material and spirit realm
monism- belief in just one realm
I will say that if the person hood and will of God is denied for its explanatory scope and power in dealing with contingent beings existing and there being a basis for objective morals and duties. I find it untenable if God is not personal/have a will how contingent beings exist when it would seem that everything would be a necessary effect from substance/event causation since he couldn’t refrain otherwise unlike agent causation.
Since effects are necessary in their nature there is no distinction between is and ought and an axiology derived from scarcity to structure moral epistemology given the moral ontology one has seems to make no sense.
Edit: If we deny his person hood what does it do to our person hood.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I will say that if the person hood and will of God is denied for its explanatory scope and power in dealing with contingent beings existing and there being a basis for objective morals and duties. I find it untenable if God is not personal/have a will how contingent beings exist when it would seem that everything would be a necessary effect from substance/event causation since he couldn’t refrain otherwise unlike agent causation.
Since effects are necessary in their nature there is no distinction between is and ought and an axiology derived from scarcity to structure moral epistemology given the moral ontology one has seems to make no sense.
Edit: If we deny his person hood what does it do to our person hood.[/quote]
for the record : i do not really derive my axiology from scarcity.
It’s only an argument aimed at the proponents of utilitarianism, to show them that even with a strictly economical definition of value, you would have to acknowledge the existence of infinite values each and everytime you have to deal with absolute scarcity.
It’s a way to demonstrate the need for moral absolutism “from the outside”, so to speak.
Philosophically, it’s obviously not enough.
Regarding the rest of your post :
my solution to the problem of determinism vs free will is parallelism.
At the very least, it requires that Will exists as a virtuality of Being. And as such, as a virtuality of “God”.
So in a way, yes, God has a will. Or we would not have one.
But it has nothing to do with the religious concept of “God’s will”.
Maybe “God’s will has no definite object” would be a better, clearer formulation than “God has no will”.
In the same way, i suppose we could say that God has personhood, but no personnality.
(Funnily enough, i find it easier to express this in english than in french, for once)