View Full Version : Why Atheism Is Morally Bankrupt - A thought since we are celebrating Christs birth...
SUBMAN1
12-23-08, 06:48 PM
I'm just waiting for the Atheist rebuttal on this one! :D
-S
If you walk around Washington, D.C., on a regular basis, youre likely to see some rather peculiar posters. But you wont see any more peculiar than the ads put out by the American Humanist Association. Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake, say the signs, in Christmas-colored red and green.
Sounds great, doesnt it? Just be good for goodness sake. You dont need some Big Man in the Sky telling you what to do. You can be a wonderful person simply by doing the right thing.
Theres only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world. Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions -- the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good. Transcending biology and our environment requires a higher power -- a spark of the supernatural. As philosopher Rene Descartes, put it, Although I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined [my soul] is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it.
Gilbert Pyle, the atheistic philosopher, derogatorily labeled the idea of soul/body dualism, the ghost in the machine. Nonetheless, our entire legal and moral system is based on the ghost in the machine -- the presupposition that we can choose to do otherwise. We can only condemn or praise individuals if they are responsible for their actions. We dont jail squirrels for garden theft or dogs for assaulting cats -- they arent responsible for their actions. But we routinely lock up kleptomaniacs and violent felons.
Its not only our criminal justice system that presupposes a Creator. Its our entire notion of freedom and equality. We hold these truths to be self-evident, wrote Thomas Jefferson, supposed atheist, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Human equality must spring from a Creator, because the presence of a soul is all that makes man human and equal. Biology suggests inherent inequality -- who would call Arnold Schwarzenegger and Stephen Hawking equal in any way? Biology suggests the sort of Hegelian social Darwinism embraced by totalitarian dictators, not the principles of equality articulated by the Founding Fathers.
Without a soul, freedom too is impossible -- we are all slaves to our biology. According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines. Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment. According to atheists, if we could somehow determine all the constituent material parts of the universe, we would be able to predict all human action, down to the exact moment at which Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pick his nose. Freedom is generically defined as the power to determine action without restraint (Random House). But if action without restraint is impossible, how can we fight for freedom?
If there is no God, there is no freedom to choose. If there is no freedom to choose, there is no good or evil. There is merely action and inaction. There is no way to be good for goodness sake -- that would require an act of voluntary will far beyond human capacity.
Atheists simply gloss over this point. The American Humanist Association states on its website, whybelieveinagod.org, We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life. Without a soul, this is wishful thinking of the highest order. Since when does biology dictate a moral drive? If it did, wouldnt man always get more rather than less moral -- wouldnt history be a long upward climb? What about the murderers, rapists, child molesters and genocidal dictators? Are they all ignoring that built-in drive toward a moral life?
Atheism may work for individuals. There are moral atheists and there are immoral religious people. But as a system of thought, atheism cannot be the basis for any functional state. If we wish to protect freedom and equality, we must understand the value of recognizing God. We must recognize the flame of divinity -- free will -- He implanted within each of us.http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2008/12/18/why_atheism_is_morally_bankrupt
Well, this is just a complete bunch of nonsense. (Suuuupriiiise!)
Theres only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world.
This only makes sense if you believe in God. Therefore, the article, and it's author are those who appear bankrupt. Any questions?
If we wish to protect freedom and equality, we must understand the value of recognizing God.
:rotfl:That's just rich....
About the author - (bold mine)
Shapiro has taken conservative stances on many social issues. He favors stronger military and law enforcement spending, as well as more restrictive laws against abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography) and "seditious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition)" speech protesting U.S. war efforts.
This guy has the balls to speak of freedom when he wants to restrict free speech?
NEXT!
Mikhayl
12-23-08, 07:06 PM
http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/thegodblog_images/Tasty-762336.jpg
NEON DEON
12-23-08, 07:06 PM
Well, this is just a complete bunch of nonsense. (Suuuupriiiise!)
Theres only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world.
This only makes sense if you believe in God. Therefore, the article, and it's author are those who appear bankrupt. Any questions?
Yes.
Where do you keep the beer?:D
http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/thegodblog_images/Tasty-762336.jpg
:rotfl:
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 07:11 PM
What a load of complete horsesh*t.
The entire article is nothing more than projection, assertion and a few strawmen, to write a well worded rebutal would be nothing more than a waste of time, I'll concider doing so when I wake up tomorrow morning, but dont hold your breath.
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 07:13 PM
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
Bad poetry, oh noetry
Task Force
12-23-08, 07:14 PM
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
:rotfl:I think ill put that in a poem book.:rotfl:
Tchocky
12-23-08, 07:21 PM
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
Bad poetry, oh noetry
Got that tshirt. :rock:
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 07:25 PM
I knew there had to be someone here that got it!:up: :rock: :up:
SUBMAN1
12-23-08, 07:29 PM
Causing a firestorm. Of course no one has been able to refute the points of the article, but I must admit, its entertaining to watch you scuffle! :up:
-S
AVGWarhawk
12-23-08, 07:32 PM
There is a God! I know because the Messiah was just elected. Also, CNN said so. :p Merry Christmas all.
GoldenRivet
12-23-08, 07:34 PM
Firstly, i do believe in God and the idea of a "Supreme being" who designed the Universe and everything in it.
There is far too much order in nature for me to believe otherwise.
About religion i will say this...
I grew up being raised as a Methodist, who eventually was sent to a catholic school as it was the only reliable private school in the area and all of my friends and neighbors were baptist so i spent a fair amount of time going to church with them.
I have concluded that not one religion on earth has it all the way right.
Religion is man made. and thus it is flawed.
You have to look back through history and look at some of the conditions under which many religions were created... generally most religions were created for the purpose of 1. giving people hope when their may be none... and 2. giving leaders, usually religious leaders the power to control and maintain order within the general population.
this is prevalent in every single society on earth. whether you worship the sun, the moon, God, Allah, a golden beaver whatever
think of this...
when you were a kid your mom and dad held it over your head all year "You better be good, because santa clause is watching you and he knows when you have been bad and wont bring you anything but a lump of coal if you dont behave and do what i say"
In adulthood we knew this bit about santa clause was total Bull crap.
however... we were being watched by someone who was in charge of whether or not we received any good gifts for christmas.
and our parents loved us... even if we were pretty bad most of the year (bad grades, pulled sisters hair, kicked the dog etc) mom and dad still got us some pretty decent gifts.
never once in all of my rotten youth did i receive any coal.
religion is the same concept... only applied to grown ups and the general polulace.
"dont do bad things or you go to hell" is the main idea
my personal religious belief is that there is a heaven and a hell.
Generally speaking, most people are good, and only God and YOU know what is inside your heart and soul. only God and YOU know when you are truly repentant and worthy of heaven.
most people... even though they have done some shady things in life... still get to go to heaven.
some people... who have done some pretty dispicable things still go to heaven, only they have some sort of purpose to fulfill in the after life... like a job of sorts which they must do for X amount of time.
Hell on the other hand... complete and total separation from all hope. a place of unimaginable disparity and torment is reserved for those persons who are beyond repentance. The Serial Killers, murderers, Contributors to mass genocide, Call of Duty team killers etc.
it seems cheesy, but i agree with the film "What dreams may come"
ever hear the term "God is love?"
ever hear the term "Love conquers all"
if someone you love goes to hell... i believe you can go and get them out
as far as athiesm goes.
you have the right to believe as you wish.
but because one is athiest - he shouldnt go around trying to get the ten commandments removed from some court house in Dirty crevace, Alabama because of it.
I also feel like some sort of fundamental beliefe in a supreme being is a core requirment for admitance into heaven.
Mikhayl
12-23-08, 07:35 PM
Thing is Subman, that kind of crock of ignorant sh!t doesn't encourage any thought out reply. Your thread and that article just get what they're worth.
Sailor Steve
12-23-08, 07:37 PM
Causing a firestorm. Of course no one has been able to refute the points of the article, but I must admit, its entertaining to watch you scuffle! :up:
-S
Unfortunately the article has no points to refute. There are no facts there - only opinion and innuendo. Enigma's first post was correct.
And I'm not even an atheist.
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 07:42 PM
Look SUBMAN, there is no point in that article, it is all just baseless claims.
A diety is not required for free will, free will is just a byproduct of our ability for abstract thought which we have due to our brains having evolved the way they did.
As for morality, morals are set by a society, not a diety, and are not absolute. Hell, look back in history and you will see all kinds of diferent cultures where the morals have been different, but most share commonalities.
Now about that point in that article which claism that biology is pushing for social darwinism, that is nothing more than a strawman at best or inexcusable stupidity at worst. Inequality between humans is indeed a fact of life, but aknowleging that does not mean that humans with defects in some areas should be left to die.
As for biology seting morals, well, in some ways it does. Back in the past it has been more benefitial for the group of humans ancestors for some member of said group to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the group, thats where altruism traces it's roots. Similar behavior can be seen in other pack animals. From the verges of altruism it is not a big leap towards a more, so called moral, existance in the group because it is benefitial. You may want to take this as being selfish, which would be true to some extent, but doing something for the beterment of a group does not really count as selfishnes in my eyes, even if at the deepest biological level it is nothing more than ensuring the survival of ones genes, by some ammount, inside said group.
anyway, my entire post is a garbled mess, have fun reading.
SUBMAN1
12-23-08, 07:48 PM
Look SUBMAN, there is no point in that article, it is all just baseless claims.
A diety is not required for free will, free will is just a byproduct of our ability for abstract thought which we have due to our brains having evolved the way they did.
As for morality, morals are set by a society, not a diety, and are not absolute. Hell, look back in history and you will see all kinds of diferent cultures where the morals have been different, but most share commonalities.
Now about that point in that article which claism that biology is pushing for social darwinism, that is nothing more than a strawman at best or inexcusable stupidity at worst. Inequality between humans is indeed a fact of life, but aknowleging that does not mean that humans with defects in some areas should be left to die.
As for biology seting morals, well, in some ways it does. Back in the past it has been more benefitial for the group of humans ancestors for some member of said group to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the group, thats where altruism traces it's roots. Similar behavior can be seen in other pack animals. From the verges of altruism it is not a big leap towards a more, so called moral, existance in the group because it is benefitial. You may want to take this as being selfish, which would be true to some extent, but doing something for the beterment of a group does not really count as selfishnes in my eyes, even if at the deepest biological level it is nothing more than ensuring the survival of ones genes, by some ammount, inside said group.
anyway, my entire post is a garbled mess, have fun reading.Your post is a mess. What I get from it is that it is baseless claims without it going into whatever. Try to break it out in your next post.
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature. For one, humans should not have the capability to help out others that are of lesser fortune because this does not fit the model.
The article above does an excellent job explaining why. That is why you should attack it on a point by point basis.
-S
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 07:52 PM
Your post is a mess. What I get from it is that it is baseless claims without it going into whatever. Try to break it out in your next post.
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature. For one, humans should not have the capability to help out others that are of lesser fortune because this does not fit the model.
The article above does an excellent job explaining why. That is why you should attack it on a point by point basis.
-S
Well biology has moved on now from the point darwin lived, there have been a lot thats has been discovered from that point onwards. Allso helping others does fit the model because helping others does improve the group as a whole whick increases survival chanses of the group. Empathy and altruism have not gone anywhere.
Sailor Steve
12-23-08, 07:54 PM
Actually, Subman, the article explains nothing, unless, as already stated, you have a prior belief.
What you think Darwin did or didn't prove is irrelevant. Morality can be explained as a function of reason and observation. The Christian could be right. So could the Atheist. There is no proof, nor even real evidence, one way or the other.
The problem is that, as with most arguments of this kind, you are already convinced of your rightness, and that's proof enough for you. That holds true for some of the people who oppose you as well, but you seem to try to flaunt your "correctness" as if it somehow places you above others.
Laughing at people who disagree with you, and demeaning them, is not a sign of superiority, or rightness. Or even of Christianity.
I don't believe deities, souls or 'self's/Cartesian dualism, free will or the ontological
existence of morality as a thing outside out minds.
I don't think these things exist for me and I don't think they exist for you either.
I make my moral judgments via the rational implementation of my faculty for
compassion. This is morality so far as I can see.
However:
I do not believe there is a single, identifiable 'I' whom makes the judgment. The
decision is made by various separate parts of my brain which communicate with each
other and produce the illusion of self. There is no evidence for an actual 'self' or 'soul'.
I do not believe the judgment I make is a result of 'free will'. No more so than apples
chose to fall to the ground. The decision is clearly not random in the way a random
number generator picks a number and neither is it fully predictable in the way a
calculator answers a question, but that dies not mean it is 'free'. There is no
evidence for free will.
I do not believe that the judgment can be consider correct or incorrect. Objects or
events can't have moral properties in the same way they have properties of width,
length, duration, volume, etc. There is no evidence for the ontological existence of
moral properties.
I do not believe that my judgments are smiled upon by some deity. No more so than
I believe my judgments are smiled or frowned upon by a goat in the sky or a
chocolate teapot circling the sun. There is no evidence for deity, sky goats or
Russell's teapot.
If you think that makes me morally bankrupt, then it makes everyone on Earth
morally bankrupt.
If you think you are not morally bankrupt, I'm just waiting for the Atheist rebuttal on
this one! ;)
Once again, I make my moral judgments via the rational implementation of my
faculty for compassion.
This is morality so far as I can see.
If someone would make a decision against their rational implementation of compassion
because the read something different in the Bible, Quran, dictionary, etc then
that is what I consider morally bankrupt.
sunvalleyslim
12-23-08, 08:13 PM
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
Tchocky
12-23-08, 08:16 PM
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
Pfft, quicksave.
Pfft, quicksave.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Brilliant....
nikimcbee
12-23-08, 08:20 PM
There is a God! I know because the Messiah was just elected. Also, CNN said so. :p Merry Christmas all.
We have a winner!:rotfl: It was on CNN, so it is true.
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
I don't think fear is a good reason to believe in God. The bible certainly does, but I don't.
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
Well, I have. Not a violent death, but I was told by a doctor that my death was very
likely. I had plenty of time to stare the prospect down and have known plenty of others
who have and are no longer with us. In my experience the usual reaction is quiet and
dignified stoicism and that is how I did my best to see it through.
What is your point?
nikimcbee
12-23-08, 08:23 PM
Actually, Subman, the article explains nothing, unless, as already stated, you have a prior belief.
What you think Darwin did or didn't prove is irrelevant. Morality can be explained as a function of reason and observation. The Christian could be right. So could the Atheist. There is no proof, nor even real evidence, one way or the other.
The problem is that, as with most arguments of this kind, you are already convinced of your rightness, and that's proof enough for you. That holds true for some of the people who oppose you as well, but you seem to try to flaunt your "correctness" as if it somehow places you above others.
Laughing at people who disagree with you, and demeaning them, is not a sign of superiority, or rightness. Or even of Christianity.
If the proof is in the pudding, I looked for proof, but all I found was bananas.
....if the bible told you to push babies off a cliffs; would you?
Aramike
12-23-08, 08:37 PM
I'm an agnostic. Why? Because you really can't know for sure one way or the other.
Frankly, I find many atheists to be as religious - if not moreso - than most Christians. I mean, if you don't believe in God, that's fine ... but why let it get your panties in a tizzy because someone else does? Isn't proselytizing supposed to be a religious thing?
Mikhayl
12-23-08, 08:56 PM
I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't think god exists, and if he does exist well I don't give a rat's ass, why would I. I happened to have had a look at death in the eyes once so to speak and uh, I thought about a few things and religion wasn't one of them. That's for the guys who cling to the empty "there's no atheist in foxholes" BS, I know there's a few here :)
And I don't feel upset or whatever when someone believes in something, but I do when some bigoted guy tells me that I have no morals and so on because I don't believe in his stuff. But hey, that's Subman, right :roll:
I believe in God but I also believe that we as a species have no better understanding of what God is than a toddler has of the intricacies of socio-economics. I also believe that religions are flawed just like any other man made institution. They were created in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, the concept of God.
Gotta love december, month of religion and anti-religion. :-?
Just become Pagan like me, were better then both extremes!
Plus our stories are better.
If someone doesn't believe in God, it doesn't make them "anti-religion".
Stealth Hunter
12-23-08, 10:29 PM
Your post is a mess. What I get from it is that it is baseless claims without it going into whatever. Try to break it out in your next post.
I took note of about 15-20 errors in the article you posted, including incorrect grammar and punctuation. Who wrote this article again?
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature.
If you took world history in high school, you know that Darwin formulated his hypothesis about evolution in the 1850s, long before psychology or even basic brain studies began. How could he answer them? Louis Pasteur hadn't even discovered bacteria yet! The questions were decades ahead of their time.
For one, humans should not have the capability to help out others that are of lesser fortune because this does not fit the model.
You mean the concept of survival of the fittest? That's a very common misconception that I've begun to notice lately.
Please note that Charles Darwin used the term as a metaphor in his book "On the Origin of Species", not as a scientific description as you and numerous others emphasize. Also, Dr. Herbert Spencer made it the popular saying that it is today, not Darwin.
The article above does an excellent job explaining why. That is why you should attack it on a point by point basis.
The article does little to suggest why Atheists are "morally bankrupt".
Points? What points? There are no points to refute or attack. The whole thing is just ignorance and an opinionated speech coined as logic. This man's motive clearly was simply to promote religion and to bash Atheism with his ideas and so-called "facts". He would be better suited as a preacher, not an amateur web writer.
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature.
If you took world history in high school, you know that Darwin formulated his hypothesis about evolution in the 1850s, long before physcology or even basic brain studies began. How could he answer them? Louis Pasteur hadn't even discovered bacteria yet! The questions were decades ahead of their time.
Even if these discoveries pre-dated Darwin I doubt he would have commented all that
much on them. He didn't answer them because he didn't attempt to as 'human nature' wasn't his area of study.
Stealth Hunter
12-23-08, 10:36 PM
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature.
If you took world history in high school, you know that Darwin formulated his hypothesis about evolution in the 1850s, long before psychology or even basic brain studies began. How could he answer them? Louis Pasteur hadn't even discovered bacteria yet! The questions were decades ahead of their time.
Even if these discoveries pre-dated Darwin I doubt he would have commented all that
much on them. He didn't answer them because he didn't attempt to as 'human nature' wasn't his area of study.
Agreed. Still, it would have been interesting to see what he thought.
Stealth Hunter
12-23-08, 10:42 PM
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
Pfft, quicksave.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u32/Rockyuk_photos/lol-jesus-brb.jpg
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 11:15 PM
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
I have stared down the barrel of a loaded gun in the hands of someone I had not met before, thats as close as I have come to staring death in the face, and no, the proper course of action in such a case is not to cry for mommy nor is it to pray to which ever god or gods you belive in.
subchaser12
12-23-08, 11:19 PM
I believe in God but I also believe that we as a species have no better understanding of what God is than a toddler has of the intricacies of socio-economics. I also believe that religions are flawed just like any other man made institution. They were created in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, the concept of God.
Holy **** August, I can't believe you just said that. I had to do a triple take to make sure I was looking at the right person.
Damn it was like in Wayne's world when Dana Carvey's character randomly spits out some rediculously complex and deep diatribe out of nowhere.
I of course agree with you.
SUBMAN1
12-23-08, 11:30 PM
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
Well, there really isnt anything else to point out on that article. Bad grammar and opinions.
antikristuseke
12-23-08, 11:36 PM
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
The critique of grammar was but one minor point in that post, did you not read the rest of it?
nikimcbee
12-23-08, 11:40 PM
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
yousa says me speak badly?
Stealth Hunter
12-23-08, 11:45 PM
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
Oh, but I attacked it on other points. Why so selective?
SUBMAN1
12-24-08, 12:03 AM
Oh, but I attacked it on other points. Why so selective?Because you made the rest of your argument look like an idiots argument with this first one, discounting the rest of your post. Same logic you used on the article with the comment about grammer.
-S
AngusJS
12-24-08, 12:11 AM
I'm just waiting for the Atheist rebuttal on this one! :D
-S
If you walk around Washington, D.C., on a regular basis, youre likely to see some rather peculiar posters. But you wont see any more peculiar than the ads put out by the American Humanist Association. Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake, say the signs, in Christmas-colored red and green.
Sounds great, doesnt it? Just be good for goodness sake. You dont need some Big Man in the Sky telling you what to do. You can be a wonderful person simply by doing the right thing.
Theres only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
This doesn't follow. In fact - if god is omniscient, then he must know everything about the past, present and future. If he knows everything about the future, then he knows everything we will ever do, right down to how I will finish this very sentence. If he knows everything we will do, how can we have free will? How could he know anything about the future if we had the ability to make real free choices?
Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world.
Please show me a soul. Why believe in them? It's been shown that brain damage can affect personality, and that brain activity corresponds with certain ideas. Why assume there's a soul?
Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions -- the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good.
What, the faiths that don't believe this don't count? Their adherents are amoral monsters?
Its not only our criminal justice system that presupposes a Creator. Its our entire notion of freedom and equality.
They don't, but even if they did, it still doesn't give an iota of evidence for a creator.
Human equality must spring from a Creator, because the presence of a soul is all that makes man human and equal.
Nope. We're equal in that we're all members of the same species.
Without a soul, freedom too is impossible -- we are all slaves to our biology.
Nope. I'm a determinist, but I can still have freedom of speech, etc. And even thought I'm a determinist, I still act as if I and others have free will, as we simply can't know all the causes for each action.
Atheists simply gloss over this point. The American Humanist Association states on its website, whybelieveinagod.org, We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life. Without a soul, this is wishful thinking of the highest order. Since when does biology dictate a moral drive?
Richard Dawkins made the point that the very existence of liberal belief proves the idea that we don't get our morals from religion. How do you know to choose to follow the nice bits and not the killy smashy bits in your "holy" book, which is the original source of your belief? You must have some standard independent of religion.
He also cites a study which had Westerners and members of the Kuna tribe participate in similar moral quandary thought experiments. The results were almost entirely the same between the two groups.
Regardless of my rebuttal, any apologist worth his salt would recognize this article as utter crap.
Wolfehunter
12-24-08, 12:15 AM
:rotfl:Man that was some funny stuff. But Subman if you believe in that nonsense then I'm happy for you. :D
Happy holidays dudes. ;)
Stealth Hunter
12-24-08, 12:17 AM
Oh, but I attacked it on other points. Why so selective?Because you made the rest of your argument look like an idiots argument with this first one, discounting the rest of your post. Same logic you used on the article with the comment about grammer.
-S
What are you talking about? The article you posted was nothing more than an opinionated hate speech. It doesn't have any points, it just makes the same old claim that Atheists are all immoral and godless bastards who must be evil. What could be more idiotic than that? All I did was point out how obvious these things were.
LobsterBoy
12-24-08, 12:18 AM
Oh, but I attacked it on other points. Why so selective?Because you made the rest of your argument look like an idiots argument with this first one, discounting the rest of your post. Same logic you used on the article with the comment about grammer.
-S
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
I take from that response that you either cannot rebut the other arguments or are so arrogant as to make debate a pointless endeavor
NEON DEON
12-24-08, 12:34 AM
What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:
-S
yousa says me speak badly?
And just what religion does Jar Jar Binks follow.:D
Stealth Hunter
12-24-08, 12:36 AM
The Light Side of the Force.
Seriously, did you know that Britain (I think it's Britain, anyway) has acknowledged Jedi Force as a religion?:lol:
subchaser12
12-24-08, 12:40 AM
The Light Side of the Force.
Seriously, did you know that Britain (I think it's Britain, anyway) has acknowledged Jedi Force as a religion?:lol:
I like this about Britian. They acknowledge everyones petty little subculters like a smiling parent instead of declaring war on everything. :up:
Aramike
12-24-08, 12:41 AM
I have to admit, upon really reading the article in the original post I find it to be highly flawed. The author is attempting to use paradoxal ideas in an attempt to prove something.
For instance, he implies that a soul is something God gives you then says that without God, there wouldn't be any souls. Under his conditions it's a true statement, but in reality he isn't really positing anything substantial. It's like a physics argument where you create the system then make a true statement about something within that system. The problem is that if the system turns out to be false, all your arguments related to it would also be false. (Einstein himself committed this error when adjusting the General Theory of Relativity to accomodate a static universe, thusly ignoring that his very own data suggested an expanding one.)
But I digress. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. Nor do I have a problem with them proselytizing. What I do have a problem with is when people use semantics and twist facts to try to "prove" something, be it religious, political, or otherwise. If the data supports you, your ideas can stand up on their own merits. There's no need to create a new, closed system to support your ideas.
Task Force
12-24-08, 01:30 AM
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.
kiwi_2005
12-24-08, 01:30 AM
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
lol
God aint a sissy mate he could stamp you slipknot fans out like a light:arrgh!:
PS Slipknot came to 'bigdayout' here in NZ 3 yrs ago. Bigday out consists of 20 or so bands local & around the world that play on 4 stages for 24hrs non stop held every year in Janurary. Slipknot was the crowd puller i just had to go and see for myself what these guys are like. Got to meet some of the bands after the event cause a mate was one of the bouncers shook hands with Slipknot and a few other bands. Only mention this cause i see your a maggot fan. ;)
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.
pfft! I'ts true. He seams to see every post as confirmation of his beliefs, regardless of the content. :rotfl:
Task Force
12-24-08, 01:35 AM
God's a sissy Jesus too,
Subman's posts are total poo.
Yaay, I'm a poet! :rock:
lol
God aint a sissy mate he could stamp you slipknot fans out like a light:arrgh!:
PS Slipknot came to 'bigdayout' here in NZ 3 yrs ago. Bigday out consists of 20 or so bands local & around the world that play on 4 stages for 24hrs non stop held every year in Janurary. Slipknot was the crowd puller i just had to go and see for myself what these guys are like. Got to meet some of the bands after the event cause a mate was one of the bouncers shook hands with Slipknot and a few other bands. Only mention this cause i see your a maggot fan. ;)
Yea, all he would have to do is create a lightning storm, and direct all the lightning towards you. Or stop alcohol sales.:lol:
Aramike
12-24-08, 01:36 AM
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post. :know:
Task Force
12-24-08, 01:36 AM
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.
pfft! I'ts true. He seams to see every post as confirmation of his beliefs, regardless of the content. :rotfl:
:rotfl:you seem to be right.:rotfl:
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post. :know:
no, you can post in this thread all you want. Im just saying.
Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post. :know:
Quite right; to come to a forum with any other motive is a little odd.
Skybird
12-24-08, 01:54 AM
The claim "I believe in a deity, thus I am a moral person" makes no logical sense in itself. It makes you an ideologically obedient person - not more. Ideologies, political as well as religious ones, can be moral, or immoral.
Thus the quotes from something that Subman seems to have linked or written, are obvious nonstarters, not logical arguments, but just this: claims, since they all seem to base on this basic mistake of mistaking ideological obedience with moral behaviour.
Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless. The real debate always is a more or less hidden attack on atheists for not believing in what you tell them to believe in: your own set of theistic ideas for which you cannot give logical reason to believe in, and that take uncheckable imagination as checked fact. Conformity is what is wanted here, and some zealots are willing to bring it upon us by even totalitarian means. Attacks of this kind of course make a hoax of any accusation about atheism being intolerant and immoral: the other is accused of what one is practicing oneself.
A random find only, but I found this essay by somebody unknown making much more sense. At least making enough sense so that I kept the link since I found it earlier this year.
http://decoy.iki.fi/atheist/no-ghost-c-02 (http://decoy.iki.fi/atheist/no-ghost-c-02)
nikimcbee
12-24-08, 01:59 AM
The claim "I believe in a deity, thus I am a moral person" makes no logical sense in itself. It makes you an ideologically obedient person - not more. Ideologies, political as well as religious ones, can be moral, or immoral.
Thus the quotes from something that Subman seems to have linked or written, are obvious nonstarters, not logical arguments, but just this: claims, since they all seem to base on this basic mistake of mistaking ideological obedience with moral behaviour.
Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless. The real debate always is a more or less hidden attack on atheists for not believing in what you tell them to believe in: your own set of theistic ideas for which you cannot give logical reason to believe in, and that take uncheckable imagination as checked fact. Conformity is what is wanted here, and some zealots are willing to bring it upon us by even totalitarian means. Attacks of this kind of course make a hoax of any accusation about atheism being intolerant and immoral: the other is accused of what one is practicing oneself.
A random find only, but I found this essay by somebody unknown making much more sense. At least making enough sense so that I kept the link since I found it earlier this year.
http://decoy.iki.fi/atheist/no-ghost-c-02
I thought you were on vacation?
Skybird
12-24-08, 02:20 AM
I thought you were on vacation?
Says who?
If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature.
If you took world history in high school, you know that Darwin formulated his hypothesis about evolution in the 1850s, long before psychology or even basic brain studies began. How could he answer them? Louis Pasteur hadn't even discovered bacteria yet! The questions were decades ahead of their time.
Even if these discoveries pre-dated Darwin I doubt he would have commented all that
much on them. He didn't answer them because he didn't attempt to as 'human nature' wasn't his area of study.
Agreed. Still, it would have been interesting to see what he thought.
I don't bother with the original post, but the history of biology is in my interest though.
Darwin didn't even use the term "survival of the fittest" until the second or third edition of Origin of Species. It's not mentioned at all in the original edition. As other already noted, philosopher and journalist Herbert Spencer was the one that came up with the expression from the start. It was then part of his mastodon project for a Synthetic Philosophy based on the general principles of integration and differentiation, where for example his Principles of Biology is but one of many very big books. Darwin was not fully satisfied with the term survival of the fittest, but by the time of the later editions of Origin, the expression was already in general use, and Darwin thought it could be used in his book as well.
Darwin addressed most of the questions about evolution and human morality, culture and reason in his book Descent of Man from 1871. Read this book if you are interested in Darwins view, or recommend it to people who says this or that about Charles Darwin and human evolution.
Altruism and evolution was well documented in zoology and discussed at the end of the nineteenth century, both when it came to animals and in connection to humans. Most famous was perhaps Russian zoologist and later anarchist Peter Kropotkin with his series of articles republished in 1902 and called Mutual Aid. based on the years as a field zoologist in Sibira and elsewhere, he criticized an overly competitive view of Darwinian evolution and the struggle for existence by showing how altruism and mutual aid was common in nature.
cheers Porphy
Aramike
12-24-08, 03:33 AM
Skybird, good post, but I do have a disagreement...Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless.This could be semantic because, had you said "atheists", I would have agreed.
However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.
Quite franky, I find atheism to have more in common with religion than agnostisicm does.
However, the ATHEIST, in very much the same way as a deist, can have varying levels of tolerence for another system of belief. That being said, I personally find the actions of the more zealous atheists to be consistant with the actions of the more zealous deists. In other words, atheism seems to be becoming a religion unto itself.
The bottom line is this: if you're an atheist who holds the belief that there is nothing to believe regarding a deity, then you truly have nothing to proclaim. There is no god, that's the way it is, so why talk about nothing?
But, when you begin peddling your atheism, you become exactly what you are supposedly opposing - a belief system. At least in the popular terms.
Either way, modern "atheism" has seemed to lock itself in a struggle between God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Brahma, etc. I find it ironic that so-called atheism would choose to "lock horns" with things atheism itself believes doesn't exist.
As for me? I'll remain agnostic until I find proof one way or the other.
Mikhayl
12-24-08, 05:40 AM
Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?
I fail to see how atheism could be a religion although I do agree of course that some atheists sound much like religious freaks and I find the adds campaign here and there really ridiculous and paradoxal. For me "atheist" is just a vague notion, but if it has to be some precise thing much like a religion then count me as "non believer" and that will do :)
And god=allah :know:
Aramike
12-24-08, 05:54 AM
Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?No. An agnostic is someone who, by definition, simply doesn't believe there is evidence one way or the other.
As for atheism being a religion, think of the meaning you interpretted the last time someone said that another was following something "religiously". That context often has nothing to do with a deity, but rather a description of how something was followed.And god=allahGod = Allah = Shiva = [insert deity here]. I know that Muslims and Christians seemingly consider Allah and God to be the same deity; I was just using different cultural terms for "God".
Skybird
12-24-08, 06:18 AM
Skybird, good post, but I do have a disagreement...Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless.This could be semantic because, had you said "atheists", I would have agreed.
However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.
I disagree.
Usually people – me included – throw two terms together when talking of “atheism”: these two terms are “atheism” and “antitheism”. Some do it because being careless and not thinking about it, others – me included – do it for reasons of verbal comfort, like they – and me - also do not always verbally differ between church and Christianity, and mean the first when using the latter.
But “atheism” and “antitheism” are not exactly the same. The first simply does not care for the question whether or not deities exist. The latter explicitly claims a position of rejecting the possibility of deities existing.
However, the burden of evidence is not on atheism, since atheism does not make any claims about the existence of something for which there is no evidence, no hint, no forcing logical conclusion, nothing that speaks for it and goes beyond the realm of hear-say and man-founded traditions of scripture, thinking and arguing. In the end, “God” is of the same quality as the statement that there are singing pink frogs living under the surface of Neptune. You can believe they live there, you can choose not to believe that, and you can simply not care. But if you choose not to believe, this hardly can be given as a argument to claim that not assuming their existence is a belief itself, by that every wild speculation would be turned into a logical argument with a justified existence by form and content, every fantasy would be upgraded in substantial, real quality, and every position not being in conformity with these wild speculations and fantasies would be stated to be the same kind of fantasy or speculation by nature and essence like these fantasies themselves. Academically, this maybe is fun, but it leads you nowhere than to fruitless hairsplitting. In the end, theistic religions still are expected to produce a self-justification that goes beyond circular self-referring. And not taking circular self-referring as valid you are a free to label as a belief in itself, yes - but the point is that you score no point by doing so.
Morals claiming to be real only when basing on religious commands and obedience to the dogma, are no morals, but obedience to that given dogma. That way, those riding on the moral high horse, have often turned out to be the most immoral and barbaric history knows of. In the end, your obedience to a set of ideological commands not necessarily makes you a morally good man, even less so when the ideology in question is basing on immoral examples itself, like possible political ideologies, or the psychopathic god of the old testament - an evil, bloodthirsty and cruel villain that for the sake of our safety and the well-being of our families we would lock behind iron bars if he would freely walk around on the streets. What you do and what you don’t do, what you decide and why – this is what makes you a good man, or not. That is moral behaviour forming up as a result of experience in life, and it is context-sensitive. It is not engraved in stone like behaviour rules in an old book, but it changes over the time of your life, and grows with your growing insight, and life experience. It thus could be called an “organic” moral behaviour.
Even more, since man has not the skill or ability to intentionally decide to forget knowledge he has gained, but can only see the need to correct his opinion if he finds out his former knowledge was wrong, you cannot escape to act morally on the basis of your knowledge and experience so far. Heaven and hell are states of mind, and nobody sentences you than you yourself. Neither reward nor penalty there is (except social sanctions of the community you live in). Being free to act as you want, the decision is yours, and your deeds can make you a moral man who is a benefit for others as well (an altruist), or not (which makes you an egoist, or even a criminal). This ultimate conflict in our existence we can already see in the fact that we cannot manage to live without taking life of others, whether it be animals, or plants. What forms our moral attitude in this conflict is the attitude in which we take this life, and whether the life we take is aware of the action and is worried, or not. That’s why from a moral position it makes a difference whether you slaughter an animal in great fear, with pain and inside the horror of a slaughtering factory, or do it yourself in a more peaceful environment, without giving the creature much time and opportunity to be worried and to suffer. Although the outcome may be the same, the different approaches are not.
In the end, morals do not get defined neither by religions, nor atheism, but the simply fact that all creatures have two things in common: they/we all try to evade fear, pain and suffering, and try to find well-being, comfort and happiness. The decisions we make in trying to get there, and the relation between our life quality and the amount to which we adjust the life quality of others, man and creatures alike, for the worse or better, decide on whether we are morally good people, or not. It’s not just the outcome that counts. Even more important is the way in which we achieved it.
That is what morals are about. Religions, or atheism, are not needed for them.
Merry Christmas to you all. ;) For me and my people over here, it means a traditional time of being together with family and friends, Gemütlichkeit, and to be thankful for the memories of a happy childhood my parents allowed (and made possible) to unfold for me.
subchaser12
12-24-08, 06:29 AM
If there is a god they sure pick really crappy representatives on earth. The current pope is an ex Hitler youth. Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell etc. I mean why not hot girls to bring god's message? Why is it always some old creepy dudes? What advertising uses old creepy white men to spread their word? Except the quaker oats guy talking about the damn diabetes it's always some hot young girl.
How can marketing be so far ahead of the all knowing all powerful god? If god knew everything I think they would know I'm not paying attention to old white men. Instead I am checking out the girl over there.
Stealth Hunter
12-24-08, 06:30 AM
Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?
I fail to see how atheism could be a religion although I do agree of course that some atheists sound much like religious freaks and I find the adds campaign here and there really ridiculous and paradoxal. For me "atheist" is just a vague notion, but if it has to be some precise thing much like a religion then count me as "non believer" and that will do :)
And god=allah :know:
Yeah, I'd say an agnostic fits it.
What gives? Christians tried this stuff for the last 2000 years. Luckily they can't burn ppl they don't agree with anymore, the enlightment at last finally got rid of that madness.
I have always considered christians the biggest hypocrits in the world. They love to throw around the morale argument, but I yet have to find a christian that actually lives by jesus teachings, a man, if he really existed as described by the book, I respect for what he attempted. He probably was the worlds first humanist. Can't see subman present his cheek after he was hit on the other, though. Modesty certainly fell out of fashion in christiandom since jesus' death.
Unluckily that can't be said by many (luckily by far not all) of his followers. Ignorant, hating ppl who snipe for everything not fitting their world view. These Christians talking about morality is like fantatic communists or fashists praising freedom and democracy. It's such a contradiction it's laughable.
joegrundman
12-24-08, 06:42 AM
Either way, modern "atheism" has seemed to lock itself in a struggle between God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Brahma, etc. I find it ironic that so-called atheism would choose to "lock horns" with things atheism itself believes doesn't exist.
These statements do not add up. Atheists are not in a struggle with a divine entity whose existence they doubt. Atheists (some) are in a struggle with religions and religious believers whose existence is not in doubt.
Schroeder
12-24-08, 07:25 AM
The current pope is an ex Hitler youth.
Almost every German kid was in the Hitler Youth. That doesn't mean you were a believing Nazi. You almost had to join if you didn't want to be treated like dirt. Even my grandfather joined although his father was a communist (from bad to worse, huh?;)) and he himself didn't give a sh!t for the Nazis (he even got dishonored twice by his group-leader).
So please look a bit deeper into the circumstances before accusing someone of belonging to an organisation.
(and no, I don't like the pope much either and are counting myself to the agnostic side with a tendency towards atheism)
UnderseaLcpl
12-24-08, 07:38 AM
Oh, what a fun thread and I didn't see it until it reached the fourth page:damn:
As much as I enjoy the discussion, though, I'd recommend a better post to start it.
Beginning with "without God there is no free will", it's full of logical gaps that are only spannable by a person who can make tremendous leaps of faith.
I'm a very religious person, and proud of it, and even I don't buy it.
Well, as long as I'm here, I might as well offer my two cents.
$ 0.01) I honsetly can't understand why atheism and religion are so often the topics of such heated debate, or why science is irreconcileable with religion in so many cases.
I would ask my atheist friends how they can be so convinced that a God does not exsist. If you value science as much as you say you do, you cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God. You revel in the same ignorance that you accuse the religious of embracing. At the very best, all you have is a theory, and it is not wise to grab a theory and pronounce it as scientific law. History, even recent history, is full of examples where people made the same supposedly "commonsense" observations and ended up being wrong. If you really believe that there is no higher power, prove that it does not exsist. Of course, that is a logical trap. As Skybird has pointed out before, on many occassions, it isn't possible to prove that something that does not exsist, does not exsist.
However, science and non-belief fail to explain a great number of things. Naturally, many, if not virtually all of the workings of the universe's mechanics will be discovered in due time. But, there is one fundamental question that science has not, and imo, will not ever be able to answer; "Why?".
It's the paradox of infinity. No matter how many answers you may have, there will always be more questions. Perhaps that illustrates my point to some, but read on if not.
To my fellow believers, whatever your religion or denomination, but especially Christians, it is widely accepted that God is the ultimate power in the universe, is he not? Even polytheistic and "atheistic" religions have the same sort of general concept. The difference between the religous and the atheists is the willingness to accept that some things are unalterably beyond our understanding. Religion is a truncation of infinity.
In Christianity, if God is ultimate power, then, who are you to question his methods? Man has repeatedly proven that he has the ability to decipher the workings of creation, to a limited extent. Imo, what God told us in the Bible is what we needed to know. First to survive, and then to thrive. Look at the differences between the Old testament and the New. Of course, I can't speak for other religions, not having been a member or student of them, except in the most casual sense, but part of the Christian belief is that other beliefs are wrong. Yet we are taught to accept non-believers of all types and to show them God's love. The alternative for them is supposedly damnation.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I see a pattern there. We are told to be forgiving, and to love our neighbors as we would ourselves, and encouraged to convert non-Christians, and promised the infinite mercy of Jesus if only we admit that we are flawed and sinful and accept him as our savior? And by these same beliefs we seek to convert others?
As with the old testament, I see us being told what we need to know. Jews and Muslims still consider eating pork to be a sinful act. That was good advice in 1500 B.C., but it doesn't really apply now. After all, back then, pork was much more likely to be infested with parasites. Now we are told to be merciful and forgiving, as our savior was. That's been good advice since we got it. I doubt there's a person on the planet who thinks that we couldn't do with a little more kindness, generosity and understanding.
I'll get to the main point in a second, but what really irks me is the people who seem to believe that they belong to an exclusive group that has the right to condemn others. Did Jesus do that? Yeah, he threw the merchants out of the temple, but did he condemn them to eternal damnation for their fallacy? What kind of God is that? A God that makes fallible creations and condemns them for being fallible? I think not. If God were that shallow, he'd be a lot easier to understand. He'd be more like us.
$0.02)
Ok, to atheists and the believers both, this is what I see. If you'll remember, I talked about science being unable to solve the paradox of infinity. Admittedly, that may not be correct someday, but given the human mind's inability to comprehend infinity, I think there is another force at work here.
Imo, God, or some higher power that desires order, as most all religions do, is all around us. That bears a bit of explaining. Let us start with the infinity paradox.
It is entirely possible that there is a limit to the universe. But what lies beyond that? What lies beyond that? And so on ad infinitum. Infinity is an impossibility. Or maybe it isn't. In either case, the human mind cannot comprehend infinity or the lack of it.
I believe that humans, like all life, are biological machines. (I'm happy to elaborate on the nuances of that concept, including the ideas of a "soul" and "human nature" if desired) Their only purpose is to reproduce and, by means of natural selection, develop a better genetic "program" Another incomprehensible infiinity. It's a means without an end, unless it's just random chance, but I'm getting to that.
Of course, some say that natural selection is an inevitability. Indeed, that is the core of the theory. I have often heard academics proclaim that we only exsist because of some fluke chance that allowed us to evolve into our current forms, and I think they are right. However, I feel that they are not looking at the big picture.
From what we know of the universe today, it seems likely that the universe will inevitably collapse, according to a theory called "The Big Crunch". There is an opposing theory, called " The Big Drift", where the entire universe eventually dissolves into subatomic particles, but that theory is infinetly less probable, by virtue of the fact that the "Big Crunch" could thoretically create an infinite number of universes, whereas the "Big Drift" could crete only one, and the theory fails to explain how the universe got there in the first place.
Infinity seems to be a common factor, and is also unfactorable. How odd.
Now, for my atheist friends, imagine, for a moment, the concept of infinity. If fact, solve it. Of course, you can't. Despite the fact that anything other than infinity cannot be comprehended, infinity itself cannot be comprehended either.
For my religious friends, I would ask that you imagine for a moment, that you are a higher power. Which "intelligent design" would you favor; One where you "magic" humanity into existence in seven days, or one where you build an infinitely complex universal machine that sustains itself. For that matter, assuming that as a god, you desire peace, tolerance and order, as we are taught, how beautiful would a machine that will inevitably create order be?
Of course, there is always a probability tha a god exsists who uses the universe as a sandcastle, building it up only to break it down. That seems unlikely to me, for a variety of reasons that I will elaborate upon should that possibility be raised.
To conclude, it seems to me that all lifeforms on this planet, including man, are biological machines. However, there is a limitation on our programming. Infinity is as uncomprehensible to us as sentience is to a computer. We may execute millions of miraculous functions every day, but we're just machines, after all.
It's a system so ingeniously designed that it could only have been made by a "god", as we know it, imo. Machines making better machines making better machines, in an infinite production line. Where it ends, if it does, who can say?
There's more to say regarding how science and religion can be reconciled, but I'll leave you with those thought for the time being.
Frame57
12-24-08, 07:42 AM
What gives? Christians tried this stuff for the last 2000 years. Luckily they can't burn ppl they don't agree with anymore, the enlightment at last finally got rid of that madness.
I have always considered christians the biggest hypocrits in the world. They love to throw around the morale argument, but I yet have to find a christian that actually lives by jesus teachings, a man, if he really existed as described by the book, I respect for what he attempted. He probably was the worlds first humanist. Can't see subman present his cheek after he was hit on the other, though. Modesty certainly fell out of fashion in christiandom since jesus' death.
Unluckily that can't be said by many (luckily by far not all) of his followers. Ignorant, hating ppl who snipe for everything not fitting their world view. These Christians talking about morality is like fantatic communists or fashists praising freedom and democracy. It's such a contradiction it's laughable.You make a good point, but the reference of the smiting on the cheek deal with what is called an orientalism, being a mid east book written by mid easterners you have to know the culture. This is in reference to an insult and not an actually smiting. To touch someone on the cheek with the left hand is an insult, so the story teaches that one is to not trade insult for insult.
Mikhayl
12-24-08, 07:54 AM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
AVGWarhawk
12-24-08, 07:57 AM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
The big bang of course:know:
Spoon 11th
12-24-08, 08:05 AM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
It was a big giant moose near Pönttövuori.
What gives? Christians tried this stuff for the last 2000 years. Luckily they can't burn ppl they don't agree with anymore, the enlightment at last finally got rid of that madness.
I have always considered christians the biggest hypocrits in the world. They love to throw around the morale argument, but I yet have to find a christian that actually lives by jesus teachings, a man, if he really existed as described by the book, I respect for what he attempted. He probably was the worlds first humanist. Can't see subman present his cheek after he was hit on the other, though. Modesty certainly fell out of fashion in christiandom since jesus' death.
Unluckily that can't be said by many (luckily by far not all) of his followers. Ignorant, hating ppl who snipe for everything not fitting their world view. These Christians talking about morality is like fantatic communists or fashists praising freedom and democracy. It's such a contradiction it's laughable.You make a good point, but the reference of the smiting on the cheek deal with what is called an orientalism, being a mid east book written by mid easterners you have to know the culture. This is in reference to an insult and not an actually smiting. To touch someone on the cheek with the left hand is an insult, so the story teaches that one is to not trade insult for insult.
*nods* one never stops learning. That does not take anything away from the comparison, however.
[...] imagine, for a moment, the concept of infinity. If fact, solve it. Of course, you can't. Despite the fact that anything other than infinity cannot be comprehended, infinity itself cannot be comprehended either.[...]
That is where you have lost me.
I believe I have a perfectly good concept of the infinite. Why wouldn't I?
There is nothing magical or mysterious about an infinite length, volume, set of numbers
or any other boundless value.
Zayphod
12-24-08, 12:42 PM
I know this is probably way off topic for this thread, but what exactly DOES an anthiest yell at orgasm? It's certainly NOT going to be "OH GOD!". :rotfl:
Merry CHRISTmas, all!
Digital_Trucker
12-24-08, 01:06 PM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
Wipe the smug off that smiley's face and explain where all the matter, anti-matter, dark energy and everything else that went into the Big Biang came from:D
Same answer to both questions, namely, "we don't have a freakin' clue" Asking a question that there is no answer to doesn't prove anything except that we don't know the answer.
Subman, do you actually have any proof that jesus exists ?
and i mean solid proof, not just some book written 1500 years (or whatever) ago
and before you discredit me like you do with everyone else you dont see eye to eye with, ive been to church, ive read the bible, and i just dont find it beliveable that there is s'posed to be someone almighty who created everything nor do i belive in heaven or hell
Mikhayl
12-24-08, 01:20 PM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
Wipe the smug off that smiley's face and explain where all the matter, anti-matter, dark energy and everything else that went into the Big Biang came from:D
Same answer to both questions, namely, "we don't have a freakin' clue" Asking a question that there is no answer to doesn't prove anything except that we don't know the answer.
Exactly, though science is more likely to ever explain that than god let alone religion :smug:
Digital_Trucker
12-24-08, 01:28 PM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
Wipe the smug off that smiley's face and explain where all the matter, anti-matter, dark energy and everything else that went into the Big Biang came from:D
Same answer to both questions, namely, "we don't have a freakin' clue" Asking a question that there is no answer to doesn't prove anything except that we don't know the answer.
Exactly, though science is more likely to ever explain that than god let alone religion :smug:
Wipe the smug off again:D, once science explains where that matter came from, how will it explain where whatever came before that came from. It's never ending and will never be explained. It had to come from somewhere, but where did that somewhere come from? We could do this all day, but it's Christmas Eve and I must leave to go to the in-laws and celebrate the birth of the son of the God which cannot be proven. I hope (really, no sarcasm intended) you enjoy the holidays.:yep:
Frame57
12-24-08, 01:31 PM
I know this is probably way off topic for this thread, but what exactly DOES an anthiest yell at orgasm? It's certainly NOT going to be "OH GOD!". :rotfl:
Merry CHRISTmas, all!That is a good one:rotfl: I wondered what an atheist funeral would be like..."Here lies Granpa, Uh, ummm, he is decomposing...":D
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
Wipe the smug off that smiley's face and explain where all the matter, anti-matter, dark energy and everything else that went into the Big Biang came from:D
Same answer to both questions, namely, "we don't have a freakin' clue" Asking a question that there is no answer to doesn't prove anything except that we don't know the answer.
Exactly, though science is more likely to ever explain that than god let alone religion :smug:
Wipe the smug off again:D, once science explains where that matter came from, how will it explain where whatever came before that came from. It's never ending and will never be explained. It had to come from somewhere, but where did that somewhere come from? We could do this all day, but it's Christmas Eve and I must leave to go to the in-laws and celebrate the birth of the son of the God which cannot be proven. I hope (really, no sarcasm intended) you enjoy the holidays.:yep:
where did god come from then ?
something had to make him cause nothing + nothing = nothing
he cant have been there from the dawn of times, cause something had to have created him, same with his creator, and his
Digital_Trucker
12-24-08, 01:37 PM
So, assuming there's a god who created all that, who created him in the first place ? :smug:
Wipe the smug off that smiley's face and explain where all the matter, anti-matter, dark energy and everything else that went into the Big Biang came from:D
Same answer to both questions, namely, "we don't have a freakin' clue" Asking a question that there is no answer to doesn't prove anything except that we don't know the answer.
Exactly, though science is more likely to ever explain that than god let alone religion :smug:
Wipe the smug off again:D, once science explains where that matter came from, how will it explain where whatever came before that came from. It's never ending and will never be explained. It had to come from somewhere, but where did that somewhere come from? We could do this all day, but it's Christmas Eve and I must leave to go to the in-laws and celebrate the birth of the son of the God which cannot be proven. I hope (really, no sarcasm intended) you enjoy the holidays.:yep: where did god come from then ?
something had to make him cause nothing + nothing = nothing
he cant have been there from the dawn of times, cause something had to have created him, same with his creator, and his
Crap, I didn't leave fast enough. I never said that anyone knows where God came from. I only stated that science also does not know where the matter that is involved in it's hypothesis came from, and it never will because it's all an infinite process. Who can find the beginning of infinity?
Subman, do you actually have any proof that jesus exists ?
There is plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed. That is rarely disputed.
It's when things get supernatural that the disagreement tends to start.
where did god come from then ?
something had to make him cause nothing + nothing = nothing
he cant have been there from the dawn of times, cause something had to have created him, same with his creator, and his
That is a poor argument against god because it is a good argument against the existence of anything and everything.
It is clearly not the case that nothing exists.
antikristuseke
12-24-08, 01:44 PM
I know this is probably way off topic for this thread, but what exactly DOES an anthiest yell at orgasm? It's certainly NOT going to be "OH GOD!". :rotfl:
Merry CHRISTmas, all!That is a good one:rotfl: I wondered what an atheist funeral would be like..."Here lies Granpa, Uh, ummm, he is decomposing...":D
"quite unlike the generations after him, I must add. We, children, do not decompose so easily due to all the preservants we have consumed during our lifetimes"
Subman, do you actually have any proof that jesus exists ?
There is plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed. That is rarely disputed.
It's when things get supernatural that the disagreement tends to start.
thats what i meant
Care to share any links to the proog that Jesus did exist? :hmm: I'm kind of suprised about the "plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed" part as I've never heard anything solid.Ow yeh, and if any of this evidence is found in the Bible, it doesnt count. There's still parts missing from the different versions and stories of bible, so it just might be that one of the lost stories says at the end "Ow yeh, all this was just my imagination. Signed: Mullah, Drunken Sheppard. Gotcha!"
If there is one thing I'm sure about is we will all know the truth eventually.
AngusJS
12-24-08, 02:24 PM
However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It's the same as not believing in astrology. It's just that there is no word "nonastrologer" that can be unfairly stuck with all sorts of negative connotations.
Humanism, skepticism and antitheism can go along with atheism, but it is not necessary to hold those beliefs to be an atheist.
Quite franky, I find atheism to have more in common with religion than agnostisicm does.
Where are the atheists who claim to be the sole dispensers of The Truth, based in some way on The Book, and who retreat to the impregnable fortress of the Sanctity and Mystery of Faith when questioned?
However, the ATHEIST, in very much the same way as a deist, can have varying levels of tolerence for another system of belief. That being said, I personally find the actions of the more zealous atheists to be consistant with the actions of the more zealous deists. In other words, atheism seems to be becoming a religion unto itself.
The bottom line is this: if you're an atheist who holds the belief that there is nothing to believe regarding a deity, then you truly have nothing to proclaim. There is no god, that's the way it is, so why talk about nothing?
We can talk about religion.
But, when you begin peddling your atheism, you become exactly what you are supposedly opposing - a belief system. At least in the popular terms.
What you're talking about is antitheism, which one can accept or reject based on evidence. And by your logic, only adherents of a faith can criticize elements of that faith. Which is a bit difficult to accept after 9/11.
Causing a firestorm. Of course no one has been able to refute the points of the article, but I must admit, its entertaining to watch you scuffle! :up:
-S
What points? :hmm:
I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?
Thats church policy, making you afraid.
Care to share any links to the proog that Jesus did exist? :hmm: I'm kind of suprised about the "plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed" part as I've never heard anything solid.Ow yeh, and if any of this evidence is found in the Bible, it doesnt count. There's still parts missing from the different versions and stories of bible, so it just might be that one of the lost stories says at the end "Ow yeh, all this was just my imagination. Signed: Mullah, Drunken Sheppard. Gotcha!"
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Nonbiblical_references_to_Jesus
Stealth Hunter
12-24-08, 05:52 PM
Care to share any links to the proog that Jesus did exist? :hmm: I'm kind of suprised about the "plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed" part as I've never heard anything solid.Ow yeh, and if any of this evidence is found in the Bible, it doesnt count. There's still parts missing from the different versions and stories of bible, so it just might be that one of the lost stories says at the end "Ow yeh, all this was just my imagination. Signed: Mullah, Drunken Sheppard. Gotcha!"
I laugh at the writing Tacitus, which reads:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Many present this as "evidence" of Jesus because it mentions "Christ". "Christ" translates to "Christus" which is Latin for "savior/chosen one". Unfortunately, people who do use this as "proof" obviously aren't aware of the number of people roaming around the Holy Land in those days who claimed to be the chosen ones of god or the gods.
SUBMAN1
12-24-08, 06:03 PM
A good quote about you die hard science freaks:
"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so." - Mark Twain
-S
LobsterBoy
12-24-08, 06:22 PM
It's Christmas Eve, so shouldn't you be in church?
Care to share any links to the proog that Jesus did exist? :hmm: I'm kind of suprised about the "plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed" part as I've never heard anything solid.Ow yeh, and if any of this evidence is found in the Bible, it doesnt count. There's still parts missing from the different versions and stories of bible, so it just might be that one of the lost stories says at the end "Ow yeh, all this was just my imagination. Signed: Mullah, Drunken Sheppard. Gotcha!"
I laugh at the writing Tacitus, which reads:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Many present this as "evidence" of Jesus because it mentions "Christ". "Christ" translates to "Christus" which is Latin for "savior/chosen one". Unfortunately, people who do use this as "proof" obviously aren't aware of the number of people roaming around the Holy Land in those days who claimed to be the chosen ones of god or the gods.
It's true that there where hundreds of Jewish rebels at the time. Jesus is about as
well documented as any other Jewish rebel. There isn't any particular reason to
doubt his existence, but nor is there any reason to get especially excited about it
out side of the context of the start of the Christianity cult.
SUBMAN1
12-24-08, 07:23 PM
It's Christmas Eve, so shouldn't you be in church?
Perfect proof that you are labeling without knowing. Thanks for pointing that out.
-S
SUBMAN1
12-24-08, 07:27 PM
It's true that there where hundreds of Jewish rebels at the time. Jesus is about as
well documented as any other Jewish rebel. There isn't any particular reason to
doubt his existence, but nor is there any reason to get especially excited about it
out side of the context of the start of the Christianity cult.Cult it is not. Look up the definition.
Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.
I like how you belittle things to try to move the point in a particular direction.
-S
Tchocky
12-24-08, 07:41 PM
Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.
Anything to back that up?
The two books written by Caesar tend to swing things in his favour, I imagine.
LobsterBoy
12-24-08, 07:53 PM
It's Christmas Eve, so shouldn't you be in church?
Perfect proof that you are labeling without knowing. Thanks for pointing that out.
-S
Yet you title the thread "Why atheism is morally bankrupt" This makes a general statement that labels atheists as morally bankrupt. Yet I see no proof or logic in an article that makes a claim without evidence to back it up.
You labeled me first and assailed my character without knowing me. I understand that people believe things that I do not. It's a free country and I respect their desire to do so. I don't claim to be right because I have no proof. I simply request that, if you wish to discuss the topic, you leave blanket statements behind.
I wonder what response I would have received had I started a thread with the title "Christianity is Morally Bankrupt" and posted an opinion piece :hmm:
Digital_Trucker
12-24-08, 09:17 PM
It is clearly not the case that nothing exists.
Wait a minute, I thought nothing did exist. Isn't that what a vacuum is? No, not a Hoover either:D
It's true that there where hundreds of Jewish rebels at the time. Jesus is about as
well documented as any other Jewish rebel. There isn't any particular reason to
doubt his existence, but nor is there any reason to get especially excited about it
out side of the context of the start of the Christianity cult.Cult it is not. Look up the definition.
Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.
I like how you belittle things to try to move the point in a particular direction.
-S
Cult it certainly is not now, but cult it certainly was back in <100 AD. Or perhaps
'Jewish sect' is a more accurate description. The rise of Christianity as something
different from Judaism was not instant and nor was it's rise in popularity, although
it was very quick to expand for several reasons.
Jesus is poorly documented by contemporary, secular sources, but that was the
norm for most lower class Jewish rebels in the corners of the empire at the time.
It wasn't until the rise of Christianity that he became of wider historical interest.
All secular sources where written after his death.
LobsterBoy
12-24-08, 11:12 PM
Perhaps Christianity is just recycled Egyptian mythology......
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
Faith the grain of a mustard seed unlocks unlimited power ... E=MC2
God is light = infinity and speed of light accomplished...hence time does not apply nor exsist.
Time has a begining,middle and end...so Einstein concluded...rightly so.
Prove me wrong...but heck sure fits better than a big bang idea in the sense evolutionists present anyways..
Thousands of years of stories and writings passed down by the ages to lend creedence to the "Creation theory" are a safe bet.
Where's the "Dead sea bing big bang badaboo Scrolls" ?..there is nothing, but theory's created by man in the last few hundred yrs...good luck with dat. :up:
Task Force
12-25-08, 01:37 AM
The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god. In the past, gods were used to put a meaning to things we don't understand. and we don't understand death.
The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god.
Well, yes, but only in the same way that we can never know for sure that there isn't a
chocolate teapot orbiting the sun and therefor there is no right or wrong answer about
the teapot.
Aramike
12-25-08, 03:44 AM
Skybird - that's why I said "in the popular terms" when referring to atheism in my argument. I, like you, believe that "atheism" and "antitheism" have become operatively interchangable terms. I don't neccessarily disagree with your points, but my arguments were kind of rested upon that usage of the term.Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It's the same as not believing in astrology. It's just that there is no word "nonastrologer" that can be unfairly stuck with all sorts of negative connotations.
Humanism, skepticism and antitheism can go along with atheism, but it is not necessary to hold those beliefs to be an atheist. I don't disagree with this at all. But, my point (which you quoted) was regarding the fact that, in order for an argument (atheism) to be a true statement, it clearly implies that its opposite would be a false statement.
Like I said when I originally posted in response to Skybird, it was kind of a semantic argument.Where are the atheists who claim to be the sole dispensers of The Truth, based in some way on The Book, and who retreat to the impregnable fortress of the Sanctity and Mystery of Faith when questioned?This question is kind of loaded, don't you say?
There are plenty of atheists and antitheists who believe that their "truth" is the only truth (as is the nature of any argument), and I've questioned many atheists regarding the origins of the universe. Not in the temporal sense, but they can seemingly go only as far back as theists can (the point of creation, not prior). To accept anything beyond that as solid truth is a question of faith.
To say concretely that there is not a creator, but then to exist in a universe clearly created by SOMETHING, but to not be able to identify that thing, is to stand on belief purely.
As for me, I personally find the idea of a god unlikely. The data clearly supports the moment of creation as being what is known as the "Big Bang". However, the data does not support my coming out and making the statement that "there is no god".
I just don't know. I doubt, but I can't say for certain. My problem is the presentation of such things as a certainty.
Your argument goes a little further, though. It implies that religion presents its conclusions as certainties. You're right, they do. That is the nature of their belief system. However, that's NOT the nature of the belief system of an atheist. My entire point is that many atheists (using the modern terminology) violate this nature by spreading their beliefs.We can talk about religion.Not saying you can't.What you're talking about is antitheism, which one can accept or reject based on evidence. And by your logic, only adherents of a faith can criticize elements of that faith. Which is a bit difficult to accept after 9/11.You have completely misinterpretted my logic if this is your conclusion. I mean, like WAY out of the ballpark. :know:
My logic was that atheists prosyletizing makes no sense as there is supposedly no belief to share. I have no problem whatsoever with any member of any belief system criticizing any other.
Stealth Hunter
12-25-08, 03:45 AM
Where's the "Dead sea bing big bang badaboo Scrolls" ?..there is nothing, but theory's created by man in the last few hundred yrs...good luck with dat. :up:
You haven't taken a look at the evidence for the Big Bang, have you?
First of all, we know that the universe had to have a "beginning", if you will.
Second, galaxies are moving away from us at speeds relative to their distance. This is known as "Hubble's Law". This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725* kelvin CMB which pervades the observable universe. This is absolute proof that the Big Bang occured (note that Penzias and Wilson were given the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their discoveries and achievments in physics).
Finally, the abundance of the lighter elements hydrogen and helium found in the observable universe do support the basic ideas the Big Bing Theory proposes.
Faith the grain of a mustard seed unlocks unlimited power ... E=MC2
God is light = infinity and speed of light accomplished...hence time does not apply nor exsist.
Time has a begining,middle and end...so Einstein concluded...rightly so.
Prove me wrong...but heck sure fits better than a big bang idea in the sense evolutionists present anyways..
My god, the man must be a genius. Get me Switzerland. We've got to relay this information to Zurich ASAP.
:roll:
Kent Hovind proposed similar comparisons in his video series that shows "evidence" for creation. I hope you can think more logically than Mr. Hovind can...
Thousands of years of stories and writings passed down by the ages to lend creedence to the "Creation theory" are a safe bet.
Then we should all be following the Mesopotamian views on religion. Lets all make monthly sacrifices to praise Gilgamesh and his supreme god-father.
Seriously, you believe in the idea of creation, which proposes that Earth and the universe and everything in it was created 6,000 years ago by an, invisible magic man in the sky?
I have no trouble with people believing in this invisible, magical sky-man (I certainly am skeptical of it and oppose the idea when people try to force it in places that it doesn't belong... like in schools), but the idea that everything is 6,000 years old is preposterous. We've known for half a century that our planet is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000...
UnderseaLcpl
12-25-08, 03:47 AM
[...] imagine, for a moment, the concept of infinity. If fact, solve it. Of course, you can't. Despite the fact that anything other than infinity cannot be comprehended, infinity itself cannot be comprehended either.[...]
That is where you have lost me.
I believe I have a perfectly good concept of the infinite. Why wouldn't I?
There is nothing magical or mysterious about an infinite length, volume, set of numbers
or any other boundless value.
Well, I've met people who felt the same, and that's perfectly acceptable. Perhaps it's just people like me that can't wrap our heads around infinity.
Honestly, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems wrong with it. As far as I know, pretty much everything can be quantified in some way. Sometimes, the calculations needed to do so would be impossibly complex, but they can be done, given the right data and algorithm. The span of the universe (or space, rather) is infinite, supposedly, but that doesn't tell us anything. You might as well say that the space is "green" light-years wide.
If space is infinitely large, then the universe, which does not have infinite mass or energy, is infinitely dense, relative to the infinite size of space. It cannot be otherwise, because space is infinite, but it is otherwise, suggesting that space is not infinite.
After all, if space were infinitely large, the universe would always be infinitely dense, and since space is nothing, the universe would remain a singularity, of infinitely increasing density.
It's possible that space is only increasing in volume at an infinite rate,(Boyle's laws come into question here) or increasing at the same speed as the universe, but then there must be something beyond it. It can't be nothing, or it would already be infinite.
True, we can identify an infinite quantity, but we can't ever really understand it. Just try to think of the highest number you can. You can never succeed, because there is always a higher number.
There may be no God in infinty, but there are no answers, either.
@ Letum, you are welcome to stop reading at this point, should you wish to
skip the religious portion. I invite you to read on, and offer your opions, though.
The bible teaches us to have faith. In other words, to believe when we can't comprehend, or understand. And we cannot understand infiinity. It teaches us to respect life, but especially life that promotes more life. Life that coexsists and cooperates and makes things that are greater than the sum of its' parts. Maybe the universe is so vast because that range of probability is required to produce intelligent life.
I choose to believe that there is a God. Maybe he is a God only because he understands things that are incomprehensible to us. Perhaps his comprehension of infinity is what seperates him from us the most. Maybe he is so intelligent that he designed a universal machine that would inevitable produce a species that would eventually ascend to his level of understanding.
Now, if you buy half of all that, you'll at least consider the possibility that infinity is as unsolveable by science as faith is by religion. Maybe there is a common element there. Maybe the pursuit of knowledge, under the principles of the Bible, could lead mankind to greater understanding than ever before. Perhaps we are meant to solve the infinite paradox.
I know that there are many who point to the fallacies of religious organizations today and in the past. They have lied, murdered, stolen, and committed other sins. Those are, of course, organizations created by men.
Many Protestant religions, and others I'm sure, believe in a more personal God that acts more as a conscience than as a judge. When God's teachings are your own, to follow as faithfully as you can, you rarely end up with a witch-burning, suicide-bombing, or heretic-smiting individual.
The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament are designed to promote order. Willful order leads to prosperity and understanding. Willful order requires freedom, and the alternative breeds revolution or war. Revolution and war breed chaos and destruction of life. All very simple concepts, you see. If social order is created and maintained by people who follow the freedom and conviction afforded by a personal God, in the Christian style, these harms are avoided. There is no central authority to corrupt other's beliefs, but there is an inviolable law set forth by God himself that is intended to prevent such authority from being corrupted. No wonder the Constitution is considered to be "divinely inspired". It ain't perfect, but it came as close as the limits of societal development and prevalent political issues would allow.
I think that science and faith are reconcileable. Science seeks answers through knowledge. Faith does not seek answers, but encourages the development of a society that is successful enough to seek them. Whatever the answer is, I believe that solving the infiinite paradox is the key, unique amongst all mysteries and more incomprehensible than any of them. To understand how the universe works is to understand the apparent infinity that we percieve. To find God and, for his will on Earth to be done as it is in heaven, we must understand his infinite power. Maybe only then will we know heaven on Earth, or wherever we may be.
There are also some beliefs concerning the "infinte" speed of light, in a relativistic sense I would like your opinion on, but those can wait. I also have a lot more to say on the topic, but I'll wait for questions, rather than attempt to answer every possible question. It's almost 0300 here, so I need to go to bed so I can be awake when my nephew and half-sister wake up in a couple of hours. And I still have stocking-stuffing and present-laying to do.
Whatever your thoughts on the topic, Merry Christmas all!
Aramike
12-25-08, 03:51 AM
The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god.
Well, yes, but only in the same way that we can never know for sure that there isn't a
chocolate teapot orbiting the sun and therefor there is no right or wrong answer about
the teapot.See, this is where I disagree. I do know and respect where you're coming from having often used the phrase "purple unicorn" myself.
However, the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.
Stealth Hunter
12-25-08, 04:14 AM
The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god.
Well, yes, but only in the same way that we can never know for sure that there isn't a
chocolate teapot orbiting the sun and therefor there is no right or wrong answer about
the teapot.See, this is where I disagree. I do know and respect where you're coming from having often used the phrase "purple unicorn" myself.
However, the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.
I see it like this, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he must also be infinitely complex (and this idea is also argued by religious persons). Henceforth, it makes his spontaneous existence far less likely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has finite complexity. And what can explain complexity? Natural selection. What has evidence to support it? Natural selection. What can explain complexity but does not have evidence? God.
Aramike
12-25-08, 04:35 AM
I see it like this, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he must also be infinitely complex (and this idea is also argued by religious persons). Henceforth, it makes his spontaneous existence far less likely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has finite complexity. And what can explain complexity? Natural selection. What has evidence to support it? Natural selection. What can explain complexity but does not have evidence? God.I can't really argue this because I don't really disagree.
Heh, unless we want to get in a physics discussion using quantum string theory... :doh:
Stealth Hunter
12-25-08, 05:26 AM
When you take a step back and really look at it all, it boggles your mind doesn't it? It troubles me to think that such great amounts of knowledge ARE available for us to discover, but we don't have the ability to discover them; it's a teasing sensation.
[...] the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.
It isn't too hard to replace the chocolate unicorn with something that was once used
to answer real questions. There are many magical beasts/people/places/objects that
have been used to explain the world we find our selves in that all seam as outlandish
as the chocolate unicorn.
As for god being a 'very logical' answer...well, yes and no. Ideas about god/gods
predate ideas about logic and rationality by a long time. So god was never a logical
answer so much as a natural answer born of the way we understand the world
through anthromorphization. In many ways god is the universe: anthromorphised.
Aramike
12-25-08, 05:41 AM
When you take a step back and really look at it all, it boggles your mind doesn't it? It troubles me to think that such great amounts of knowledge ARE available for us to discover, but we don't have the ability to discover them; it's a teasing sensation.Indeed.
I've been recently revisiting Einstein's theory General Relativity. Setting the freakishly impossible math aside (Einstein himself employed mathemeticians to help with the equations), I think people don't truly grasp the enormity of it all. Just the distances neccessary to calculate gravitational pulls are tremendous. Here we are in tiny little corner of the Milky Way, one star amongst billions. Our galaxy just one amongst billions. And we can hardly make it to our moon.
It's enough to make anyone feel insignificant.
I feel that teasing sensation. Everytime I hear about the discovery of another planet, I wonder what it looks like. I wonder if the light speed barrier will ever be broken, knowing that it won't happen in my lifetime. It's so easy to imagine the grandeur waiting for us out there, so I find it so hard to accept that we'll probably never know it.
A little depressing, I guess. But hey, at least there still are some mysteries left.
Aramike
12-25-08, 05:56 AM
[...] the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.
It isn't too hard to replace the chocolate unicorn with something that was once used
to answer real questions. There are many magical beasts/people/places/objects that
have been used to explain the world we find our selves in that all seam as outlandish
as the chocolate unicorn.
As for god being a 'very logical' answer...well, yes and no. Ideas about god/gods
predate ideas about logic and rationality by a long time. So god was never a logical
answer so much as a natural answer born of the way we understand the world
through anthromorphization. In many ways god is the universe: anthromorphised.It's all about context, I believe. I don't entirely disagree with you, but we have to frame the question within the context in which it was asked.
Sure, mystical beasts of all different kinds were used to explain all different things in times predating logic. But we must look at what was being explained. At those times, rain itself was a mystery. Why did the sky turn dark at night? In those contexts, the Chocolate Unicorn could very well circle the sun.
Fast forward to now, we know the the Chocolate Unicorn would melt. We know what causes the rain. We understand why day turns into night.
Moreso, we've just begun to grasp the basics of Everything. But, there are some things we just don't get. One example (that personally troubles me) is the nature of life itself. Evolution is a FACT. Science has shown time and time again that life has evolved to survive and thrive in its environment. However, what science has yet to explain is WHY does this nature occur?
I find it to be quite similar to Newton's model of gravity. His observations are quite accurate and even NASA still uses his physics today. However, Newton himself had no idea WHY gravity occurred. It wasn't until Einstein that we started to get an idea.
I don't doubt that we'll someday understand what governs the behavior of life itself. But, until then, I can't rule out the possibility of God. Even if I don't really believe it to be true.
I see it like this, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he must also be infinitely complex (and this idea is also argued by religious persons). Henceforth, it makes his spontaneous existence far less likely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has finite complexity. And what can explain complexity? Natural selection. What has evidence to support it? Natural selection. What can explain complexity but does not have evidence? God.I can't really argue this because I don't really disagree.
Heh, unless we want to get in a physics discussion using quantum string theory... :doh:
I will have a go at disagreeing with it. ;)
As I understand it the argument runs as follows:
1) God is infinitely complex
2) The universe is finitely complex
3) Therefor god is more complex than the universe
4) Before the occurrence of a god or of a universe, entropy was higher than the state
after the occurrence of a god or a universe.
5) More complex things are in lower entropy states than less complex things
6) Changes from high entropy to low entropy are less likely the larger the change
7) Therefore the occurrence of a god is less likely than the occurrence of a universe
4 bothers me. I agree that universes must spring from high entropy states, but most
deists tend to claim that god is infinatly old. If this is the case then there can never
have been a entropy state higher than the one in which he/she/it is present.
More broadly, the idea that complexity is related to entropic likelihood bothers me.
That is the same fallacy that lead to the idea of the Boltzmann brain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)
It is flawed because it is perfectly possible to have a low complexity system that has
lower entropy than a highly complex system. Complexity is not something that can
be objectively judged.
If space is infinitely large, then the universe, which does not have infinite mass or energy, is infinitely dense, relative to the infinite size of space. It cannot be otherwise, because space is infinite, but it is otherwise, suggesting that space is not infinite.
You can do a lot more math with infinite values than you might imagine. It is quite
possible to show that a infinite volume containing an infinite mass is not infinatly
dense.
The reason for this is that one infinite value can be bigger than another infinite value.
That can be a little hard to understand at first.
Try to imaging a ruler that extends across an infinite length. Every 1m there is a
green ball and every 100m there is a red ball. There is therefore an infinite number of
red and green balls. However there are 100 times more green balls than there are
red.
You will always find 100 green balls for every red you find, but you will find an
infinite number of both kinds of ball. The fact that you find an infinite number of
both types of ball does not change the fact that there are 100 green to every red.
An infinite volume containing an infinite mass does not have an infinite density
because the infinite volume value is not the same as the infinite mass value.
*edit* I have been looking up the maths again and it gave me a painful reminder
of what a bitch it is to use in practice.
Also, apologies for the double post.
*edit2*
However, what science has yet to explain is WHY does this nature occur?
I don't understand. Why does what occur?
Subnuts
12-25-08, 08:01 AM
This thread has gone on too long.
So I thought you'd all like to see a picture I took this weekend of Jesus placed in a ZipLock sandwich bag and stapled to a telephone pole.
http://i43.tinypic.com/vxn1fs.jpg
Ironically, this is pretty similar to how the original Jesus died.
Mikhayl
12-25-08, 08:17 AM
Ironically, this is pretty similar to how the original Jesus died.
Stifled with a ziplock sandwich bag ?
Digital_Trucker
12-25-08, 10:15 AM
Ironically, this is pretty similar to how the original Jesus died.
Stifled with a ziplock sandwich bag ?
I think he meant the part about being stapled to a telephone pole:D
Where's the "Dead sea bing big bang badaboo Scrolls" ?..there is nothing, but theory's created by man in the last few hundred yrs...good luck with dat. :up:
You haven't taken a look at the evidence for the Big Bang, have you?
First of all, we know that the universe had to have a "beginning", if you will.
Second, galaxies are moving away from us at speeds relative to their distance. This is known as "Hubble's Law". This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725* kelvin CMB which pervades the observable universe. This is absolute proof that the Big Bang occured (note that Penzias and Wilson were given the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their discoveries and achievments in physics).
Finally, the abundance of the lighter elements hydrogen and helium found in the observable universe do support the basic ideas the Big Bing Theory proposes.
Faith the grain of a mustard seed unlocks unlimited power ... E=MC2
God is light = infinity and speed of light accomplished...hence time does not apply nor exsist.
Time has a begining,middle and end...so Einstein concluded...rightly so.
Prove me wrong...but heck sure fits better than a big bang idea in the sense evolutionists present anyways..
My god, the man must be a genius. Get me Switzerland. We've got to relay this information to Zurich ASAP.
:roll:
Kent Hovind proposed similar comparisons in his video series that shows "evidence" for creation. I hope you can think more logically than Mr. Hovind can...
Thousands of years of stories and writings passed down by the ages to lend creedence to the "Creation theory" are a safe bet.
Then we should all be following the Mesopotamian views on religion. Lets all make monthly sacrifices to praise Gilgamesh and his supreme god-father.
Seriously, you believe in the idea of creation, which proposes that Earth and the universe and everything in it was created 6,000 years ago by an, invisible magic man in the sky?
I have no trouble with people believing in this invisible, magical sky-man (I certainly am skeptical of it and oppose the idea when people try to force it in places that it doesn't belong... like in schools), but the idea that everything is 6,000 years old is preposterous. We've known for half a century that our planet is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000...
Let there be light and there was light...you think about that.
Man wrestles with the problem of moving at the speed of light in order to reach "Somewhere" else in the universe and concedes without speed of light travel it will fail...youll never make it to even the closest star in a lifetime...quit thinking so small.
Travel need not be in physcial form as we know it and as far as all science figures it can't be....maybe there is something to this spiritual stuff after all huH?
Wow a new concept?
Amen! Merry Christmas!
Grain of a mustard seed Stealth...grain of a mustard seed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ipb8-CLDM
Zachstar
12-25-08, 03:24 PM
You know Subman.. I tried. I honestly tried to read that huge sack of steamy bull turds but the smell was too much. I know you peddle in such Subman but how smelly can you get?
I think he meant the part about being stapled to a telephone pole:D
Technically that wasn't what killed him. It was that spear jab to the heart.
I think he meant the part about being stapled to a telephone pole:D
Technically that wasn't what killed him. It was that spear jab to the heart.
Nope it was not that either...it was voluntary...that was I believe something they did after they were finally done torturing someone and wanted to go do something else.
John 10
17 (http://bible.cc/john/10-17.htm) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 (http://bible.cc/john/10-18.htm) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
John 19
30 (http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 (http://bible.cc/john/19-32.htm) Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 (http://bible.cc/john/19-33.htm) But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 (http://bible.cc/john/19-34.htm) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 (http://bible.cc/john/19-35.htm) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 (http://bible.cc/john/19-36.htm) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 (http://bible.cc/john/19-37.htm) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
saltysplash
12-26-08, 03:56 AM
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving...
...and revolving at 900 miles an hour
That's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned...
a sun that is the source of all our power
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral-arm, at 40,000 miles an hour...
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred-billion stars
It's a hundred-thousand light-years side to side
It bulges in the middle, 16-thousand light years thick
but out by us it's just 3-thousand light years wide
We're 30-thousand light years from galactic central point
we go round every two-hundred-million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know
12-million miles-a-minute, and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cos there's bugger-all down here on Earth
Stealth Hunter
12-26-08, 04:24 AM
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving...
...and revolving at 900 miles an hour
That's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned...
a sun that is the source of all our power
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral-arm, at 40,000 miles an hour...
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred-billion stars
It's a hundred-thousand light-years side to side
It bulges in the middle, 16-thousand light years thick
but out by us it's just 3-thousand light years wide
We're 30-thousand light years from galactic central point
we go round every two-hundred-million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know
12-million miles-a-minute, and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cos there's bugger-all down here on Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss
I love that song.
Takeda Shingen
12-26-08, 07:11 AM
I think he meant the part about being stapled to a telephone pole:D
Technically that wasn't what killed him. It was that spear jab to the heart.
I believe that asphyxiation was the primary cause of death for the crucified.
I think he meant the part about being stapled to a telephone pole:D
Technically that wasn't what killed him. It was that spear jab to the heart. I believe that asphyxiation was the primary cause of death for the crucified.
Correct. Although because of the length of time that would take, I imagine mercy killings where common.
Frame57
12-26-08, 10:29 AM
The concept of the Romans breaking the legs were to speed up death. Crucifixion causes respiratory/Cardiac failure. The lung will fill will fluid as this occurs slowly. This is why when the lung was punctured "water" flowed out.
Aramike
12-26-08, 01:30 PM
This thread has taken an odd, morbid direction... :|\\
Sailor Steve
12-26-08, 01:57 PM
Okay, since Subman seems to be intent on flaunting opinion as fact and belief as truth, and laughing at anyone who disagrees; and this has devolved into yet another "I'm right and you're stupid" religious argument, I'm going to try to stick with the article itself, and the circular reasoning in flawed logic therein.
If you walk around Washington, D.C., on a regular basis, youre likely to see some rather peculiar posters. But you wont see any more peculiar than the ads put out by the American Humanist Association. Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake, say the signs, in Christmas-colored red and green.
Sounds great, doesnt it? Just be good for goodness sake. You dont need some Big Man in the Sky telling you what to do. You can be a wonderful person simply by doing the right thing.
Not a bad start, since the author is intent on proving his thesis that all morals stem from God, and without a guiding hand we have no free will or moral capability.
Theres only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
A good statement, but made from belief, and as yet without substantiation. But a thesis has to begin somewhere.
Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world.
Says the believer. But he already believes. This is a statement of 'fact', but there are as yet no facts to support it. It's merely belief, stated as absolute. But it's just the beginning, so let's move on.
Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions -- the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good. Transcending biology and our environment requires a higher power -- a spark of the supernatural. As philosopher Rene Descartes, put it, Although I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined [my soul] is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it.
And now we have a problem. So pretty much all faiths believe in free will, and we can't concieve of anything greater than ourselves unless that something actually exists? We don't know that. We can imagine all kinds of things, and free will versus predestination has been an ongoing argument among scholars of all faiths since there have been faiths. And quoting Decartes is nice, but doesn't prove anything, since later philosophers and scholars have alternately agreed with him and claimed that his reasoning was flawed on that point (with which I agree, by the way). It becomes a case of "my philosopher can beat up your philosopher", which can be fun but in both cases is still nothing more than opinion.
Gilbert Pyle, the atheistic philosopher, derogatorily labeled the idea of soul/body dualism, the ghost in the machine. Nonetheless, our entire legal and moral system is based on the ghost in the machine -- the presupposition that we can choose to do otherwise. We can only condemn or praise individuals if they are responsible for their actions. We dont jail squirrels for garden theft or dogs for assaulting cats -- they arent responsible for their actions. But we routinely lock up kleptomaniacs and violent felons.
How exactly is our legal system based on "The Ghost in the Machine"? Again, a statement out of nowhere, with no backing. I read the Ten Commandments, and I read Mosaic Law in the Bible, and I find almost nothing in common with English Common Law, from which American law derives. We hold people responsible for their actions, and we create law to protect ourselves from each other. How exactly does any of that have to do with the existence - or not - of a separate soul.
A brief aside here: It could be (and has been) argued that the concept of a soul derives from our awareness of our mortality, and desire not to have it end when we die. If we go on, exactly what part of it is it that does exist after our bodies stop? Hence you must have a soul, or else it doesn't work, and the need for a soul does not necessarily equate with the existence of one.
Its not only our criminal justice system that presupposes a Creator. Its our entire notion of freedom and equality. We hold these truths to be self-evident, wrote Thomas Jefferson, supposed atheist, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Human equality must spring from a Creator, because the presence of a soul is all that makes man human and equal. Biology suggests inherent inequality -- who would call Arnold Schwarzenegger and Stephen Hawking equal in any way? Biology suggests the sort of Hegelian social Darwinism embraced by totalitarian dictators, not the principles of equality articulated by the Founding Fathers.
Again he states flatly that our criminal justice system presupposes a creator, with no other evidence that that he believes it to be so. He then calls Jefferson a "supposed atheist". Actually Jefferson's writings indicate that he certainly believed in a God, and that he had a soul that would live on after he was gone. What the author doesn't tell you, though, is that Jefferson absolutely did not believe that Jesus Christ was that God 'come in the flesh'. He more than once called Jesus "the greatest human teacher" and even wrote his own 'Bible', in which he kept the teachings but dismissed any miraculous happenings as made up by his followers. It was the Christian leaders of his own time who labelled Jefferson an 'atheist'.
Without a soul, freedom too is impossible -- we are all slaves to our biology. According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines. Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment. According to atheists, if we could somehow determine all the constituent material parts of the universe, we would be able to predict all human action, down to the exact moment at which Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pick his nose. Freedom is generically defined as the power to determine action without restraint (Random House). But if action without restraint is impossible, how can we fight for freedom?
And yet again, a statement without backing. How exactly is freedom impossible without a soul? No explanation, and no backing. In the end, opinion is given as the proof of argument, and opinion is no proof at all.
If there is no God, there is no freedom to choose. If there is no freedom to choose, there is no good or evil. There is merely action and inaction. There is no way to be good for goodness sake -- that would require an act of voluntary will far beyond human capacity.
More of the same. How does he come to this conclusion? "I believe it, therefore it is so!" Who says it would require an 'act of voluntary will far beyond human capacity."? He does, and he expects everyone to take his word for it. It may be true, or it may not, and he doesn't know for sure any more than I do. He only makes the claim, with not real substantiation.
Atheists simply gloss over this point. The American Humanist Association states on its website, whybelieveinagod.org, We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life. Without a soul, this is wishful thinking of the highest order. Since when does biology dictate a moral drive? If it did, wouldnt man always get more rather than less moral -- wouldnt history be a long upward climb? What about the murderers, rapists, child molesters and genocidal dictators? Are they all ignoring that built-in drive toward a moral life?
And now he calls morality without the soul "wishfull thinking". And with what evidence. Again it's a case of "I'm right and you're stupid", with no backing other than his own statement that it's so.
All speculation, advertised as 'fact'.
Nice post, Sailor Steve. And one I completly agree upon. What this article once again shows, is that religious people have a problem using their brains. They rather follow the teaching of others instead of coming to their own conclusions. The same applies to radical followers of any other ideology, be it communism, capitalism, feudalism, absolutism and all the other "isms" out there. All these are basics thoughts laid out by ppl like you and me, philosophical guidelines of how to create a better society in their mind. There is nothing mysterious about it, and nothing of greater wisdom anybody else could come up with by using the brain.
Ignorant folks follow these guidelines without questioning, to a degree it is bordering or even embracing fanatism. More open folks question "all" of these guidlines, use those parts they come to the conclusion making sense, and dismiss those that they think, or already made the expirience, do not work.
That subman posted this text actually expecting and demanding debate over nothing but hot air already shows a mindset that is fixated not on reasoning and finding the truth, but on the opposite, defending a truth served to ppl alive thousands of years ago.
Aramike
12-26-08, 07:09 PM
What this article once again shows, is that religious people have a problem using their brains. They rather follow the teaching og others instead of coming to their own conclusions.I would tend to say the same thing about anyone using such a broad statement.
That article shows that the author is clearly biased and self-supporting.
"Following the teaching of others" doesn't display a lack of independent thought. I, for one, am a fan of Einstein. Does agreeing with relativity mean that I'm not using my brain?
Jesse Jackson writes self-supporting nonsense all the time. Does that mean that all black people are as shallow as he is?
"Thou shalt not kill" is not a bad thing just because it originates in religion. Nor is it morally superior because of that same fact. There's far more to it.
There are plenty of extremely intelligent, religious people out there. The difference between many of them and the author is that they simply don't feel the need to try to justify their faith. Why should they? They don't owe you or anyone else an explanation.
For people like me, the origins of the universe and life itself are great, thought-provoking questions I find drawn to. For others, they simply just don't care that much and decide to go with God-did-it. Then they go on to use their brains in economics, medicine, phlisophy, etc.
Again, I would suggest that broadly labelling a belief system is the result of limited intellectual inquiry.
Wolfehunter
12-26-08, 07:15 PM
Nice post, Sailor Steve. And one I completly agree upon. What this article once again shows, is that religious people have a problem using their brains. They rather follow the teaching of others instead of coming to their own conclusions. The same applies to radical followers of any other ideology, be it communism, capitalism, feudalism, absolutism and all the other "isms" out there. All these are basics thoughts laid out by ppl like you and me, philosophical guidelines of how to create a better society in their mind. There is nothing mysterious about it, and nothing of greater wisdom anybody else could come up with by using the brain.
Ignorant folks follow these guidelines without questioning, to a degree it is bordering or even embracing fanatism. More open folks question "all" of these guidlines, use those parts they come to the conclusion making sense, and dismiss those that they think, or already made the expirience, do not work.
That subman posted this text actually expecting and demanding debate over nothing but hot air already shows a mindset that is fixated not on reasoning and finding the truth, but on the opposite, defending a truth served to ppl alive thousands of years ago.Their is a word for it... Common sense. Nothing more or less.
Stealth Hunter
12-27-08, 03:01 AM
Alack, so few possess it and so many fool themselves into the delusion that they do.
Aramike
12-27-08, 03:47 AM
"Common sense" is a misnomer. Common it is not.
Skybird
12-27-08, 05:49 AM
Sailor Steve, Bewulf,
good posts, I agree.
Stealth Hunter
12-27-08, 06:18 AM
I got to thinking back to Monty Python, and I managed to dig up this goodie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk&feature=rec-HM-r2
:rotfl:
IEHOVA! IEHOVA!
I got to thinking back to Monty Python, and I managed to dig up this goodie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk&feature=rec-HM-r2
:rotfl:
IEHOVA! IEHOVA!
Excellent source! :yep:
:up:
What this article once again shows, is that religious people have a problem using their brains. They rather follow the teaching og others instead of coming to their own conclusions.I would tend to say the same thing about anyone using such a broad statement.
That article shows that the author is clearly biased and self-supporting.
"Following the teaching of others" doesn't display a lack of independent thought. I, for one, am a fan of Einstein. Does agreeing with relativity mean that I'm not using my brain?
Jesse Jackson writes self-supporting nonsense all the time. Does that mean that all black people are as shallow as he is?
"Thou shalt not kill" is not a bad thing just because it originates in religion. Nor is it morally superior because of that same fact. There's far more to it.
There are plenty of extremely intelligent, religious people out there. The difference between many of them and the author is that they simply don't feel the need to try to justify their faith. Why should they? They don't owe you or anyone else an explanation.
For people like me, the origins of the universe and life itself are great, thought-provoking questions I find drawn to. For others, they simply just don't care that much and decide to go with God-did-it. Then they go on to use their brains in economics, medicine, phlisophy, etc.
Again, I would suggest that broadly labelling a belief system is the result of limited intellectual inquiry.
Feel free to stick to that opinion. I am not a follower of individual judgement when it comes to general groups. A group is defined by all it's members, especially it's most vocal ones. If the more open folks, as yourself, associate themselves with a group "otherwise" defined, then you also have to bear the blame.
It's neither your nor mine fault christians have a reputation for beeing close minded, dogmatic folks with a bloody and cruel history. They brought that onto themselves and as you can see by the topic starter, still do so. I do respect those christians that are open to debate, distancing themselves from the church and dogmatic ruling, but these folks are a minority and hardly christians in the common sense of the word.
Digital_Trucker
12-27-08, 08:57 AM
I do respect those christians that are open to debate, distancing themselves from the church and dogmatic ruling, but these folks are a minority and hardly christians in the common sense of the word
Not being antagonistic here, but how do you judge who the majority of Christians are? By the most vocal and most whacked-out or by the average person that walks down the street and you have no idea whether they are Christian or not? By the raving lunatics, or the true followers of Christ's teaching who do things like volunteer their time and worldly possessions to those less fortunate than themselves? I'd be very interested in how you define the majority of Christians.
And when did the common sense of the word Christian become anything except those who follow the teachings of Christ?
Sailor Steve
12-27-08, 07:07 PM
Just to make it clear, I don't take either side in the actual debates on religion. As the author said, there a moral atheists and immoral Christians. I only wanted to state my opinions on the specific reasoning in the article itself.
I used to be a devout Christian, but cannot find any real evidence for the existence of a God beyond what already exists in the mind of the believer. That said, I don't hold with atheists who proclaim that all belief is stupid, or unreasonable. I don't know the answers, and I'm glad to discuss that with anyone willing to have a reasonable discussion.
That doesn't include people on either side who insist that what they see is right, and anyone who disagrees is only worth laughing at.
Aramike
12-27-08, 07:49 PM
That doesn't include people on either side who insist that what they see is right, and anyone who disagrees is only worth laughing at.Here, here.
Aramike
12-27-08, 11:57 PM
I think I missed this one...Feel free to stick to that opinion. I am not a follower of individual judgement when it comes to general groups. A group is defined by all it's members, especially it's most vocal ones. If the more open folks, as yourself, associate themselves with a group "otherwise" defined, then you also have to bear the blame. That's silly. There's a reason for the terms "mainstream" and "extremist".
Groups are usually defined by averages.
As for myself, I'm not a member of a religious group. I'm an agnostic. I'm just not intolerant of religion.It's neither your nor mine fault christians have a reputation for beeing close minded, dogmatic folks with a bloody and cruel history. Some Christians are that way, yes. So are some atheists.
As for the history of the group, humanity itself is what has the bloody and cruel past. Mankind was violent long before the advent of Christianity. Religion itself is often blamed for the evils of history, but I think that's a very narrow and short-sighted view. Human nature and, quite simply, bad people are responsible for our ills. Religion was just used as an ideological tool. Left to its own devices, Christianity is a beautiful religion. Some people have, in the past, perverted it.
Modern Christianity is no more responsible for that history than you and I are responsible for American slavery.I do respect those christians that are open to debate, distancing themselves from the church and dogmatic ruling, but these folks are a minority and hardly christians in the common sense of the word.Why should they have to be open to debate? Believing in a god (or not) does not make one more or less smart. There are plenty of Christians in literature, medicine, science, or any other discipline. Maybe debate to them is irrelevent and a meaningless waste of time. Maybe they enjoy the comfort of their beliefs and don't see a point to challenging that.
People like us - we are the types to constantly challenge our perceptions (at least, that's what I'm hoping you do). That doesn't make us any more "smart" - for me, it's really just something I enjoy doing that happens to make me smarter.
peterloo
12-28-08, 10:18 AM
Sailor Steve, extremely good analysis, but I take a pro-religion stance instead
As what Aramike has pointed out, there are good or bad Christians, and good or bad atheists. But wait, how do we define "good" and "bad"? By what golden law do we define good and bad? Religious people have the answer, atheists don't, except resorting to other's definitions, which can only end up in either scenarios
(1) Using a definition of religious people
(2) Using a definition of atheist.
For the scenario (2), the atheist invokes others definition again. So this cycle repeats until scenario (1) is met.
Also, what religion persuits is the origin of the world and ultimate salvation, not the moral rules. The moral rules are ONLY the by-products of it. This is similiar to philosophy, but religion has another part --- the salvation, the way how human can reach God.
And if Christians believe in the moral rules of Christianity merely, they have got something wrong in their logic --- People don't believe in Christ for the moral rule, instead, they believe, due to their belief that sin has ruined their relationship with God, and only by believing in Christ can this relationship be rebuilt.
humanity itself is what has the bloody and cruel past, irrespective of the religion
Agreed. But religious people believe there is a way to build a better world and get rid of "sins". But all of them state that all the sins can only be removed in heaven, when God annihilates devil. I don't think Jesus, or Muhammed, or the other divine figures in different religions, has proclaimed that, thir believers can live without sin in the current earthly world
Believing in a god (or not) does not make one more or less smart.
As stated, Christianity or other religion does not state that their followers gets smarter, and people don't believe due to their hope of being smarter
You are a religious people, so you hold your assumptions and beliefs as facts
If you try to bash a religion, you must reveal flaws within its beliefs, not to compare its beliefs to your belief and say "there is a problem" in case of incoherence
Feel free to reveal my flaw, as I am probably younger than you all and my thinking mode is probably less mature as well
It had to come from somewhere,
Who told you that? ;)
Digital_Trucker
12-28-08, 11:34 AM
It had to come from somewhere,
Who told you that? ;)
Well, it certainly didn't come from nowhere:D Seriously, no one told me that, it's my own opinion. Guess I should have stated that:)
[...]how do we define "good" and "bad"? By what golden law do we define good and bad? Religious people have the answer, atheists don't, except resorting to other's definitions, which can only end up in either scenarios
(1) Using a definition of religious people
(2) Using a definition of atheist.
For the scenario (2), the atheist invokes others definition again. So this cycle repeats until scenario (1) is met.
Could you give an example of an atheist using a religious definition of morality?
How do you think those who have never been exposed to a moralizing religion at all
gain their moral behavior?
And finally, how can the moral guidance from religion be shown to be correct. Especially
when many people would consider the moral guidance from some exotic religions to be
highly immoral?
Skybird
12-28-08, 02:06 PM
[...]how do we define "good" and "bad"? By what golden law do we define good and bad? Religious people have the answer, atheists don't, except resorting to other's definitions, which can only end up in either scenarios
(1) Using a definition of religious people
(2) Using a definition of atheist.
For the scenario (2), the atheist invokes others definition again. So this cycle repeats until scenario (1) is met.
Could you give an example of an atheist using a religious definition of morality?
How do you think those who have never been exposed to a moralizing religion at all
gain their moral behavior?
And finally, how can the moral guidance from religion be shown to be correct. Especially
when many people would consider the moral guidance from some exotic religions to be
highly immoral?
Indeed.
Again:
(...)
Morals claiming to be real only when basing on religious commands and obedience to the dogma, are no morals - but obedience to that given dogma. That way, those riding on the moral high horse, have often turned out to be the most immoral and barbaric history knows of. In the end, your obedience to a set of ideological commands not necessarily makes you a morally good man, even less so when the ideology in question is basing on immoral examples itself, like possible political ideologies, or the psychopathic god of the old testament - an evil, bloodthirsty and cruel villain that for the sake of our safety and the well-being of our families we would lock behind iron bars if he would freely walk around on the streets. What you do and what you don’t do, what you decide and why – this is what makes you a good man, or not. That is moral behaviour forming up as a result of experience in life, and it is context-sensitive. It is not engraved in stone like behaviour rules in an old book, but it changes over the time of your life, and grows with your growing insight, and life experience. It thus could be called an “organic” moral behaviour.
Even more, since man has not the skill or ability to intentionally decide to forget knowledge he has gained, but can only see the need to correct his opinion if he finds out his former knowledge was wrong, you cannot escape to act morally on the basis of your knowledge and experience so far. Heaven and hell are states of mind, and nobody sentences you than you yourself. Neither reward nor penalty there is (except social sanctions of the community you live in). Being free to act as you want, the decision is yours, and your deeds can make you a moral man who is a benefit for others as well (an altruist), or not (which makes you an egoist, or even a criminal). This ultimate conflict in our existence we can already see in the fact that we cannot manage to live without taking life of others, whether it be animals, or plants. What forms our moral attitude in this conflict is the attitude in which we take this life, and whether the life we take is aware of the action and is worried, or not. That’s why from a moral position it makes a difference whether you slaughter an animal in great fear, with pain and inside the horror of a slaughtering factory, or do it yourself in a more peaceful environment, without giving the creature much time and opportunity to be worried and to suffer. Although the outcome may be the same, the different approaches are not.
In the end, morals do not get defined neither by religions, nor atheism, but the simply fact that all creatures have two things in common: they/we all try to evade fear, pain and suffering, and try to find well-being, comfort and happiness. The decisions we make in trying to get there, and the relation between our life quality and the amount to which we adjust the life quality of others, man and creatures alike, for the worse or better, decide on whether we are morally good people, or not. It’s not just the outcome that counts. Even more important is the way in which we achieved it.
That is what morals are about. Religions, or atheism, are not needed for them.
SUBMAN1
12-28-08, 03:04 PM
...I used to be a devout Christian, but cannot find any real evidence for the existence of a God beyond what already exists in the mind of the believer. I suspect this is because god came into conflict with something major in your life, so you found a way to discount him.
That said, I don't hold with atheists who proclaim that all belief is stupid, or unreasonable....
That is why I like talking to you. You can still have a reasonable conversation, and an objective one.
-S
I stand corrected.
It's still not sure he (Jesus) ever lived.
Good reading for both, a-theist and theist. ;)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
and:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
...I used to be a devout Christian, but cannot find any real evidence for the existence of a God beyond what already exists in the mind of the believer. I suspect this is because god came into conflict with something major in your life, so you found a way to discount him.
Something major in Sailor Steve's life.....:hmm:
Ahh! Reality! ;)
SUBMAN1
12-28-08, 04:44 PM
Something major in Sailor Steve's life.....:hmm:
Ahh! Reality! ;)Problem is, we all know who's right and we both know reality had nothing to do with it.
If people were smart, they would realize we are not here by accident.
-S
Problem is, we all know who's right and we both know reality had nothing to do with it.
I agree!
You are right and reality has nothing to do with it.
Biggles
12-28-08, 05:48 PM
If people were smart, they would realize we are not here by accident.
-S
If there was no God that created us, there must've been a big accident?
Now that I think of it, looking at us humans (and religious fanatics in particular) it makes more and more sense to me that something went terribly wrong all those years ago....
Aramike
12-28-08, 05:54 PM
Problem is, we all know who's right and we both know reality had nothing to do with it.
I agree!
You are right and reality has nothing to do with it.Heh, that was pretty funny. :rotfl:
Stealth Hunter
12-28-08, 08:13 PM
...I used to be a devout Christian, but cannot find any real evidence for the existence of a God beyond what already exists in the mind of the believer. I suspect this is because god came into conflict with something major in your life, so you found a way to discount him.
That said, I don't hold with atheists who proclaim that all belief is stupid, or unreasonable....
That is why I like talking to you. You can still have a reasonable conversation, and an objective one.
-S
:rotfl:
Kids, I think it's time for a song. Ready?
Gimme that old time religion!
Gimme that old time religion!
Gimme that old time religion!
It's good enough for me!
It was good for Old Jonah!
It was good for Old Jonah!
It was good for Old Jonah,
And it's good enough for me!
:rotfl:
peterloo
12-29-08, 10:28 AM
[...]how do we define "good" and "bad"? By what golden law do we define good and bad? Religious people have the answer, atheists don't, except resorting to other's definitions, which can only end up in either scenarios
(1) Using a definition of religious people
(2) Using a definition of atheist.
For the scenario (2), the atheist invokes others definition again. So this cycle repeats until scenario (1) is met.
Could you give an example of an atheist using a religious definition of morality?
How do you think those who have never been exposed to a moralizing religion at all
gain their moral behavior?
And finally, how can the moral guidance from religion be shown to be correct. Especially
when many people would consider the moral guidance from some exotic religions to be
highly immoral?
I try to answer all three question one by one. Again, feel free to reveal the flaws within them. I'll try my best to eliminate them but sometimes it is inevitable.
Q: Could you give an example of an atheist using a religious definition of morality?
A: I don't think I can give one, as you don't believe in the religious definition unless you are a believer, but the definition of morality is similiar between religious people and atheists, as what skybird has pointed out, to evade pain and sufferings
Q: How do you think those who have never been exposed to a moralizing religion at all gain their moral behavior?
A: I'm afraid your assumption may have some flaws. Some people who have never been exposed to a moralizing religion may not have a moral behavoir. For example, the monkey boy, John Ssabunnya, (info here: http://www.occultopedia.com/j/john_ssabunnya.htm) did not received any religious education due to his little age when he escaped into the jungle. When he was found, he ate in an errectric way. He did not wear clothes. He had long finger nails and infested with fleas. These are contradictory to the "moral behavoir" that we believe in today
Q: And finally, how can the moral guidance from religion be shown to be correct.
A: Again, quoting from skybird's article --- if it can let people evade pain, sufferings and to become happy. If the teachings matches these citerias then it can be shown to be correct
(Quoting from skybird's article has one fundermental flaw --- it reveals that I start to accept skybird's definition. However, I still maintain my pro-religion stance)
(edited because I found that I didn't finish this article as I post it)
peterloo
12-29-08, 10:32 AM
(just proof that I didn't edit the article above AFTER someone post something in reply to it). Sorry for it
This thread demands a hearty injection of Friedrich Nietzsche, maybe The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and someone better read than I to provide it!
There are many successful moral and ethical approaches that don't bother with even a passing reference to religion. Models like utilitarianism or Kantian ethics and categorical imperatives have existed for hundreds of years and orient themselves towards the intrinsic values of human beings and their happiness. That they provide satisfactory guidance in all but the most abstract and unlikely hypotheticals should be reason itself to deny the idea that atheism is "morally bankrupt."
Skybird
12-29-08, 12:10 PM
This thread demands a hearty injection of Friedrich Nietzsche, maybe The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and someone better read than I to provide it!
Hm, and I had Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ" on my mind. :lol:
Sailor Steve
12-29-08, 12:34 PM
...I used to be a devout Christian, but cannot find any real evidence for the existence of a God beyond what already exists in the mind of the believer. I suspect this is because god came into conflict with something major in your life, so you found a way to discount him.
Possibly, but nothing I can think of. I simply have come to question everything, and look for evidence, and have yet been able to find none.
That said, I don't hold with atheists who proclaim that all belief is stupid, or unreasonable....
That is why I like talking to you. You can still have a reasonable conversation, and an objective one.[/quote]
But (and no offense is intended, but I have to be honest), I came into this thread accusing you of the same lack of reason and objectivity. I love discussing the issues, but again I've come to question everything I see, including my own motives and knowlege. I'm no longer a devout believer simply because I've seen no real evidence that would cause me to believe that doesn't stem from the belief itself. But I'm also not a true atheist for the simpe reason that, though I consider it a trite and somewhat lame retort, "You can't prove there isn't a God either!" is still basically true. I can't place my faith in something I can't prove, and that includes nonexistence as well.
Frame57
12-29-08, 12:35 PM
Something major in Sailor Steve's life.....:hmm:
Ahh! Reality! ;)Problem is, we all know who's right and we both know reality had nothing to do with it.
If people were smart, they would realize we are not here by accident.
-S "God does not roll dice..." Albert Einstein:know:
Sailor Steve
12-29-08, 12:42 PM
I stand corrected.
It's still not sure he (Jesus) ever lived.
Good reading for both, a-theist and theist. ;)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
and:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
Excellent links! I especially like the logic in the second one.:sunny:
I stand corrected.
It's still not sure he (Jesus) ever lived.
Good reading for both, a-theist and theist. ;)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
and:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
Excellent links! I especially like the logic in the second one.:sunny:
I must say, Doherty's way of explaining Paul was a revelation for me.:yep:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.