@Mykull: you're thinking far too linearly. You're trying to apply the things which we know (read: perceive) about time and causality on the scale at which we can perceive them to the universal and quantum levels. Things just behave very differently on those scales.
Furthermore, to your core cosmological argument.
1)Everything that exists has a cause.
Not necessarily, see above. Or rather, the cause might come afterwards in linear time, but that's splitting hairs.
2)The universe exists.
Accepted.
3)Therefore the universe was caused.
Then you're saying that god is the original cause. First you have to show that god exists, rather than redefining something to be god. God is a sentient entity that created the universe as well as life itself.
Also, why doesn't your argument apply to god?
1)Everything that exists has a cause.
2)God exists. (Well, we disagree here, but for the sake of argument...)
3)Therefore god was created.
The way you get out of this conundrum is by saying "except god is magic so he didn't have to be caused". And all BNW is saying is you could just say "the universe is magic and thus didn't have to be caused".
Question: Why do atheists (stereotypically) lamb-baste theists for pushing their beliefs on others when they do the exact same thing? Atheists believe there is no God and go to great lengths to push that belief on others.
NO. We don't. Stop LYING to support your beliefs.
We simply DON'T believe in gods. That's not the same as BELIEVING that they don't exist.And by great lengths to push those beliefs on others you mean...?
Where are all the atheists missionaries around the world? Where are all the atheist politicians? Where are the atheist colonists, beating natives to death with ideas about atheism?
If a handful of atheists on an internet messageboard, refuting poor reasoning handed up by theists is "going great lengths to push their beliefs on others" then you're far too sensitive.
Meatrace, I think he might be speaking in a broader sense, not necessarily targeting anyone in this board. Perhaps your experience has been different, or you just haven't noticed, but a lot of Atheist are just as adamant in pushing their particular view as your average fire-and-brimstone priest.
I mean, my very own sister got pelted with condoms by a crew of Atheists during the World Youth Meetings in Spain last year, calling them all sorts of names for being Catholic; I personally confronted a group of 40-some members of the "Freethinker Society" who were literally verbally abusing a group of middle-aged women as they walked out of the cathedral here in Santiago, with huge signs and t-shirts of "God does not exist. Don't believe the lies" (and all that got me was laughter and insults for being an "ignorant sheep"); I've seen a group of strongly Atheist students break in during a mass, stand in front of the altar (while the priest was getting ready for the blessing of the bread, the most sacred part of our ritual), lock arms, and start yelling at the audience about how stupid all this was and how we were wasting our lives.
It is not meant as a demonization; people can be dicks, and they can be dicks about what they believe in. And it is the same for both theists and atheists.
Meatrace, I think he might be speaking in a broader sense, not necessarily targeting anyone in this board. Perhaps your experience has been different, or you just haven't noticed, but a lot of Atheist are just as adamant in pushing their particular view as your average fire-and-brimstone priest.
You keep saying that, but it isn't the case. I haven't noticed, because I've not yet seen any evidence to support it.
I think something that's being missed here is that being a dick is not the same as "forcing your opinions on others." Rather forcing your opinions on others is a way of being a dick but not the only way.
For example, being a dick:
"Your beliefs are a pack of worthless lies and you're a fool to hold them!"
Forcing your opinions on others:
"We own marriage and under no circumstances can it be permitted except when it conforms to our standards."
Before we go into something that will probably net more fights than fruitful debate, I think it is better if we go back to the main topic.
Before we go into something that will probably net more fights than fruitful debate, I think it is better if we go back to the main topic.
I was operating under the impression that you wanted to talk about people forcing their beliefs on others, as you raised that subject.
Before we go into something that will probably net more fights than fruitful debate, I think it is better if we go back to the main topic.I was operating under the impression that you wanted to talk about people forcing their beliefs on others, as you raised that subject.
I was answering Meatrace, who in turn contested Myrkull's claim on the subject. But I noticed the most likely outcome of following said line of thought would be both sides of the argument trying to find better ways to ensure the other is pictured as the worst offender.
My apologies for bringing that up.
I've seen a group of strongly Atheist students break in during a mass, stand in front of the altar, lock arms, and start yelling at the audience about how stupid all this was and how we were wasting our lives.
For what it's worth, if I actually saw people doing this, I'd kick their ass -- and I'm an outspoken atheist (indeed, people have called me a "militant atheist"). Similarly, I don't break into people's D&D games with fellow atheists, lock arms, and yell at them to stop playing.
As far as "verbally abusing" old ladies, I'd have to see that one. If someone tells me that I need to get on my knees and pray to God, and I say I don't believe in him and don't care to act like a subservient cur in any event, a lot of people consider that to be "verbal abuse" on my part.
Have to echo Samnell here.
Being a dick =/= forcing your views on someone.
Furthermore, I think it takes a lot more respect for someone to tell them to their face that they're wrong and they're an idiot (and then share a beer) than to vaguely believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and that one thing is as good as the next.
I think something that's being missed here is that being a dick is not the same as "forcing your opinions on others." Rather forcing your opinions on others is a way of being a dick but not the only way.
For example, being a dick:
"Your beliefs are a pack of worthless lies and you're a fool to hold them!"Forcing your opinions on others:
"We own marriage and under no circumstances can it be permitted except when it conforms to our standards."
Though all of the atheist extremist examples are examples of poor behavior and not to be condoned, those isolated examples pale in comparison to the repression, genocide, and general mind F'ing that the religious are so fond of over the centuries. Best to be careful throwing stones in a glass house.
|
“If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But, if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger – according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.” – C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity
And that is exactly the sort of horrible, horrible perception of our existence that makes me glad I'm an atheist. The Chronicles of Narnia were great, but this is just... toxic.
thefreedictionary defines exist as an intransitive verb meaning to have actual being; be real.
I began to exist.
Like most philosophy, this is resting on the inadequacies of language to make its point. Its equivocation between different meanings of the phrase began to exist.
You Began to exist. That is pre existing parts (molecules) where assembled and at some point became you. That is the only way we’ve ever seen anything start to exist.That “Began” to exist doesn’t apply to the universe.
Everything [began to exist]
Really means
Everything [was assembled into its present form from previous parts]
Therefore the universe [was assembled into its present form from previous parts]
But that doesn’t make sense for things coming into being in the first place. Its two completely different concepts that happen to be covered under the same phrase.
What is the “certain way” that you're asserting I'm claiming the universe can't act?
Effects preceeding causes in zero time, Another dimension where time runs backwards. Giant superstrings vibrating and creating the universe out of the nothingness of subspace, completely unknown physical laws that explain how the allegedly impossible things can happen.
If we're at this stage then we've passed the point of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I argued that it did. If it had a beginning, then it was begun. What began the thing that begun it all? No, we've gone back to the very beginning, there isn't anything earlier. We're at the First Cause of it all; a thing that has no cause because it is not an effect. It is, therefore, in a different category and to ask for the cause of something that isn't in the category of cause and effect is erroneous
Why not? There appear to be quantum mechanics that run along those lines.
or an unintelligent cause. When I look at the complexity and intricacy of how everything works I find it more probable that the cause is intelligent rather than unintelligent. The whole “a 1000 monkeys banging away on typewriters aren't going to ever write Hamlet.”
And gobs of chemicals were supposed to be incapable of forming in such a way as to produce the intricate wing of a bat, the eyes of an eagle, or our marvelously screwed up human brains… but that’s exactly what happened: very simple rules allowed for some incredibly complex results.
Take the sandcastle on the beach. Is it more reasonable to think that it was designed or just randomly thrown together by tidal forces and wave action?
BigNorseWolf wrote:
of course faking your death with bc teck is preposterous, but so is the idea of magic, and so is the idea of the son of god who is god. You cant just take three preposterous ideas, rule the first two preposterous, and hen conclude it ZMUST be the third option.
. So if we're talking about Jesus' resurrection, then we're accepting for this argument, that the Christian God exists. If we don't agree with that much, for this argument, then we have nothing to debate about this.Hmmm I don’t know if we’re missing each other or if you’re not that familiar with the argument from historicity.
You cannot assume that the Christian god exists to argue for a resurrection that shows that the Christian god exists.
The argument from historicity says that the only (or at least best) explanation for the new testament is that it actually happened as described.
Question: Why do atheists (stereotypically) lamb-baste theists for pushing their beliefs on others when they do the exact same thing? Atheists believe there is no God and go to great lengths to push that belief on others.Push or try to convince?
First off I don’t know atheists that go through great lengths for it. Hell, I’m (I kid you not) lying flat on my back with my head on a pile of pillows holding a wireless keyboard to write most of this. Its hard to imagine something with LESS effort.
Secondly atheists tend to be argumentative: they wouldn’t BE atheists in our society if they were the type that just went with the flow and followed the crowd. Arguing against something we think is wrong because its wrong is second nature. I don’t limit my lampooning to religion.
Thirdly many atheists have had bad experiences with Christianity. Mine included probable concussions.
Fourth, various forms of Christianity, the ones that seem to have the more active publicity campaign, support some pretty bad politics to further their own ends and impose their will on people.
And fifth, the bible and Christianity (the ones with that publicity campaign again) say some really nasty things about atheists. If someone called you an immoral communistic moron you might have a few choice words or a one fingered gesture in return as well.“If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. “
Living things matter, even if its only temporary. ESPECIALLY if its only temporary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirdly many atheists have had bad experiences with Christianity. Mine included probable concussionsOnce again I am reminded of the quote by Ghandi.
"I like your Christ, I think. I do not think I like your Christians, as I see so little of Christ in them."
Or as a bumper sticker put it
The atheists prayer: Dear god, please save me from your followers.
Meatrace, I think he might be speaking in a broader sense, not necessarily targeting anyone in this board. Perhaps your experience has been different, or you just haven't noticed, but a lot of Atheist are just as adamant in pushing their particular view as your average fire-and-brimstone priest.
I mean, my very own sister got pelted with condoms by a crew of Atheists during the World Youth Meetings in Spain last year, calling them all sorts of names for being Catholic; I personally confronted a group of 40-some members of the "Freethinker Society" who were literally verbally abusing a group of middle-aged women as they walked out of the cathedral here in Santiago, with huge signs and t-shirts of "God does not exist. Don't believe the lies" (and all that got me was laughter and insults for being an "ignorant sheep"); I've seen a group of strongly Atheist students break in during a mass, stand in front of the altar (while the priest was getting ready for the blessing of the bread, the most sacred part of our ritual), lock arms, and start yelling at the audience about how stupid all this was and how we were wasting our lives.
It is not meant as a demonization; people can be dicks, and they can be dicks about what they believe in. And it is the same for both theists and atheists.
All thing considered, does that sound better or worse than the Lords Resistance Army situation in Africa? I guess I'm asking you if God is a fictional character you gain strength from, or an entity you expect to meet at a party.
(I mean, a respectable dinner party, or something.)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
or an unintelligent cause. When I look at the complexity and intricacy of how everything works I find it more probable that the cause is intelligent rather than unintelligent. The whole “a 1000 monkeys banging away on typewriters aren't going to ever write Hamlet.”
I think you've mis-remembered this one.
A thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters (that is to say, a random text generator) will almost surely write Hamlet, eventually.
No God would give a petty human the knowledge to figure out anything regarding the blueprints for the foundations of the universe. It's an unknown when we die. If it is a faith test as told in the ancient books than death will only be the true teller of the biblical tales. One thing is for sure there is heavy mathematics regarding the universe. As if some architect had mapped it out perfectly.Just because we don't understand it (yet) doesn't mean some super skygod built it. You're entire statement of "fact" presumes that a god exists. Essentially you just said "He exists because he wouldnt do X." I hope the logical fallacy is plain enough.
Just because you don't belive in some "Skygod" doesn't mean it fails to exist. My statement was off of fact and opinion. I have my rights as a living being on this planet, that floats in a cosmic graveyard of rocks, stars, and mystery.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still maintain that if I am incorrect, and there is a God, I'm going to punch Him in the face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you don't belive in some "Skygod" doesn't mean it fails to exist. My statement was off of fact and opinion. I have my rights as a living being on this planet, that floats in a cosmic graveyard of rocks, stars, and mystery.No God would give a petty human the knowledge to figure out anything regarding the blueprints for the foundations of the universe. It's an unknown when we die. If it is a faith test as told in the ancient books than death will only be the true teller of the biblical tales. One thing is for sure there is heavy mathematics regarding the universe. As if some architect had mapped it out perfectly.Just because we don't understand it (yet) doesn't mean some super skygod built it. You're entire statement of "fact" presumes that a god exists. Essentially you just said "He exists because he wouldnt do X." I hope the logical fallacy is plain enough.
I refuse to accept that my bank account it empty. Doesn't mean it's not true though.
That's hardly limited to bigots.
|
There's an inherent difference between congregating out of mutual intrest, and the inevitable way that f++&wads and asshats will all jump on the douchewagon to try to belittle another group. This thread is another example of the same bunch getting together to lambaste everyone who doesn't agree with them. But I guess that's what passes for enlightenment these days.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It stopped?Nope, doesn't seem to ever stop. All the same ego-stroking [not-so-nice-people] won't let it.
I'm sorry you're that offended, but if someone pointblank asks why atheists are arguing against Christianity its hard to not list negative experiences with christian as a contributing factor.
I know that there are many good, reasonable people who follow christianity. The problem is threefold
1) It is MUCH easier to make a strong negative impression than a strong one
2) Christianity's morals are rooted in the past, our society is moving towards the future
3) The large, organized and very vocal churches that have a disproportionate amount of air time are also the ones with a very negative message. Pat robertson gets his message out far more effectively than reverend otis.
It stopped?Nope, doesn't seem to ever stop. All the same ego-stroking [not-so-nice-people] won't let it.
I'm sorry you're that offended, but if someone pointblank asks why atheists are arguing against Christianity its hard to not list negative experiences with christian as a contributing factor.
I know that there are many good, reasonable people who follow christianity. The problem is threefold
1) It is MUCH easier to make a strong negative impression than a strong one
2) Christianity's morals are rooted in the past, our society is moving towards the future
3) The large, organized and very vocal churches that have a disproportionate amount of air time are also the ones with a very negative message. Pat robertson gets his message out far more effectively than reverend otis.
Basically that.
|
|
Morals, at their core do not change. The same basic morals that held yesteryear will still hold in century.
Oh, and lest I forget. Pat Robertson is a loudmouth f&~*wad who outlived his usefulness the moment he figured out it was easier to polarize a group against their fellow man than to reach out and promote love and unity.
Pat Robertson endorsed the assassination of Hugo Chavez. If love is the base of Christian morality, why didn't we hear a chorus Christian leaders saying that they no longer recognize the authority of his ministry? It seems to me (speaking as an atheist) that Christian charity has evolved into "forgive the Christians, revile the rest."
Mercy that you offer only to the people you like isn't mercy, it's just favoritism.
|
|
Pat Robertson endorsed the assassination of Hugo Chavez. If love is the base of Christian morality, why didn't we hear a chorus Christian leaders saying that they no longer recognize the authority of his ministry? It seems to me (speaking as an atheist) that Christian charity has evolved into "forgive the Christians, revile the rest."
Mercy that you offer only to the people you like isn't mercy, it's just favoritism.
See my above comments about Robertson.
*Crosses arms and shakes head disapprovingly.*
I see the whole bash the Christians b+@%#!@# has started again. Big f*#@ing surprise.
Really? I haven't seen it at all.
We're not even talking about christianity necessarily. We're talking about the existence of god/lack thereof. If having a DISCUSSION, or a debate, in which ONE of the possibilities is distasteful to you, constitutes bashing your religion, I'd grow a thicker skin sir.
Morals, at their core do not change.
Then what are "core morals" that haven't changed?
|
|
I see the whole bash the Christians b+@%#!@# has started again. Big f*#@ing surprise.Really? I haven't seen it at all.
We're not even talking about christianity necessarily. We're talking about the existence of god/lack thereof. If having a DISCUSSION, or a debate, in which ONE of the possibilities is distasteful to you, constitutes bashing your religion, I'd grow a thicker skin sir.
Well to be honest your opinion of what I should do means less than dog s@#% to me.
Little one liners and quips about Christians and faith in general are what gets old. But I guess since you agree with it all you wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
The difference is I'm willing to come right out and tell you what I think of you without trying to hide behind generalities.
The difference is I'm willing to come right out and tell you what I think of you without trying to hide behind generalities.
The difference being you're angry that anyone has a different religion than you.
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
Morals, at their core do not change. The same basic morals that held yesteryear will still hold in century.
I doubt that. Its very hard if not impossible to split the bible into "this is the morals part, this is the traditions part" without simply picking the morals part to be the parts that you as an individual agree with.
200 years ago You could own people because of their skin color. 100 years ago people couldn't marry because of skin color.
In 100 years what will it look like? Will we give non human personhood to chimps and whales? View milk cows the same way we do slavery? Stop the nationalistic tribalism that makes killing foreigners morally different than killing our own people?
Treat others as you want to be treated might stay the same, but we've been great;y expanding who the other part covers.
[quoteI never said I was a good Christian, just that I tried to be.
Please try a little harder. There's the chance for some good discussion here and I don't want to see it blown for something as blatantly against the rules as a flurry of foul phonetics. I;'m the last one to say no angry rants but there are more effective ways to do it than swearing. You're doing more to justify the sentiment behind the bumpersticker and ghandi quote than arguing against it.
|
|
The difference is I'm willing to come right out and tell you what I think of you without trying to hide behind generalities.The difference being you're angry that anyone has a different religion than you.
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
I couldn't care less what faith or lack thereof someone else has, anybody who knows me knows that.
What pisses me off is a complete lack of respect towards other peoples beliefs, regardless of whether they share mine or not.
The difference is I'm willing to come right out and tell you what I think of you without trying to hide behind generalities.The difference being you're angry that anyone has a different religion than you.
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
I couldn't care less what faith or lack thereof someone else has, anybody who knows me knows that.
What pisses me off is a complete lack of respect towards other peoples beliefs, regardless of whether they share mine or not.
Again though, how is disagreeing with it, and attempting to elicit a rational debate, disrespecting?
|
|
Please try a little harder. There's the chance for some good discussion here and I don't want to see it blown for something as blatantly against the rules as a flurry of foul phonetics. I;'m the last one to say no angry rants but there are more effective ways to do it than swearing. You're doing more to justify the sentiment behind the bumpersticker and ghandi quote than arguing against it.Morals, at their core do not change. The same basic morals that held yesteryear will still hold in century.I doubt that. Its very hard if not impossible to split the bible into "this is the morals part, this is the traditions part" without simply picking the morals part to be the parts that you as an individual agree with.
200 years ago You could own people because of their skin color. 100 years ago people couldn't marry because of skin color.
In 100 years what will it look like? Will we give non human personhood to chimps and whales? View milk cows the same way we do slavery? Stop the nationalistic tribalism that makes killing foreigners morally different than killing our own people?
Treat others as you want to be treated might stay the same, but we've been great;y expanding who the other part covers.
[quoteI never said I was a good Christian, just that I tried to be.
Note I did not say Biblical morals, although I do believe that God did indeed intend those to evolve, look at the Old vs New Testament.
The Basic Core Morals of humanity, the things that are Right/Wrong regardless of what society accepts or doesn't.
Respect, Generosity, Kindness, Empathy. Don't steal, don't kill.
Things of that bent.
|
There's an inherent difference between congregating out of mutual intrest, and the inevitable way that f$*+wads and asshats will all jump on the douchewagon to try to belittle another group. This thread is another example of the same bunch getting together to lambaste everyone who doesn't agree with them. But I guess that's what passes for enlightenment these days.
No, there really isn't. It's always the Group vs. the Other. Which one you are changes, and the tone varies, but it's all much the same.
I'd say your guess is rather misinformed as well.
My apologies, Christians.
I try to be respectful of other people's beliefs, but, the truth is, if I see God, I'm taking a swing. I'd buy Jesus a beer, though.
My apologies, Christians.
I try to be respectful of other people's beliefs, but, the truth is, if I see God, I'm taking a swing. I'd buy Jesus a beer, though.
I'd just give him a glass of water ;)
Cheapskate.
Dude can turn it into wine.
Also, I believe that frugality is a virtue.
Shiznit, I'd even toke Him up.