# Religion?



## AgentKuo (Nov 21, 2011)

So this is gonna be an odd thread.

Does anyone enjoy discussing/debating religion? I kinda do.

I'm an atheist myself, but I think religion is very interesting (the psychology and mythology behind it is just interesting to me.) I ought to also mention that I was a Christian up until I was 16 (I'm 18 now). And a devout Christian for about 7 years of my life.

So I dunno, state your religion or belief system (or lack of belief system), and lets discuss?


----------



## NeedReality (Nov 21, 2011)

This is a bad idea - discussing religion on the internet never ends well. I'm guessing this thread will be locked rather quickly.

I will contribute so this is at least on topic, though; I do not like to discuss religion unless I'm with people I am close to for the most part (they are usually less likely to shove their beliefs on you or quickly criticize yours) and I am a Pantheist.


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 21, 2011)

I personally am a Christian. I think you need to state more so WHAT sort of topic you want to debate about. I remember once I popped on to IRC and someone proposed the question, "Do islams and Christians have the same god?", and a debate came out of that.

Why arn't you a Christian anymore? 



NeedReality said:


> I am a Pantheist.



Whats that?


----------



## irontwig (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm a atheist, but I thought Judges and Acts were pretty fun reads.


----------



## ardi4nto (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm a Muslim.

I agree that a discussion about religion over the internet is a really, really bad idea. There was some threads like this, and it was closed, why start it again?


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 21, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> I personally am a Christian. I think you need to state more so WHAT sort of topic you want to debate about. I remember once I popped on to IRC and someone proposed the question, "Do islams and Christians have the same god?", and a debate came out of that.


You have a point. I didn't have any particular direction in mind when making this thread. And to be honest, i don't really have any ideas for a particular direction right now. Just whatever comes up, I guess.



> Why arn't you a Christian anymore?


It's a really long story, so I'll try to give the short version.
Gold Coast Christian Camp was a camp I attended almost every summer. It was great, and I always felt like I was getting closer to Jesus and building a personal relationship with him when I was there. Not to mention, the people were really cool and I made a lot of friends. The counselors were great too. But let me back up a bit. From time to time, while I was a Christian, I was taught to 'question my faith', to test it, to ask God to show himself to me, to let me know that he really is there and really does care about me. And I did, and I felt like he was talking to me or like I felt his presence at least. Anyway, I think the real turning point was after I read Dante's Inferno and some of Dante's Purgatorio. Epic poems, but mythology. Around the same time, I decided I was going to start reading my Bible (because I felt like I didn't do that often enough). And I just flipped to a random book, which turned out to be Ezekiel. And I started reading it. And what I was reading sounded like mythology, like something I would read in The Odyssey or The Vedas, or some other Epic poem or mythology story. That's when it first hit me. 'maybe the Bible isn't meant to be taken completely literally. Maybe just some stuff is historical and some is just supposed to be metaphor, like the mythology parts are metaphorical. After this, I got to thinking more about it. I started watching atheist deconversion stories on YouTube (I don't remember why I did this in the first place), and I found them extremely interesting. It was like what they were saying was so new to me, these ideas were so different. So I started questioning my faith even more. I started to ask God to show me that he exists, to give me a sign to let me know that he was with me. And he never did. This is when I first thought 'Maybe god doesn't exist'. And for about...6 months, I think, I changed my views to strictly agnostic. I didn't know if there was a god or not, and I didn't think it was fair to myself to claim there was one when I really wasn't sure anymore. During this time I started to study flaws and contradictions in the Bible, and one concept I remember thinking about was 'God doesn't follow his own rules' (I'm not gonna elaborate). This got me kind of thinking about things like 'is God a sinner, then?' and stuff like that. Just critically thinking about ideas and principles of my faith. That year, at camp my counselor was a guy named Steven, who was also the pastors son at my friends church. And he was seriously the coolest counselor I ever had. I told my cabin mates that I was agnostic, and my counselor was just incredibly supportive. He told me he knew what I was going through and that I had to like figure things out for myself and stuff. Not long after camp I started thinking more and more. And I don't remember when it happened exactly, but I spoke out loud "I am an atheist". And it made sense. It was weird, and it felt extremely awkward, but it was the truth, and I realized it at that moment. I was an atheist, and there was nothing I could do about it. It was simply what made sense at that time.

I should clarify, I was never taught that the Bible was 100% literal, but I was taught that it was 100% true. I knew that some story's were only meant as parables, but I never thought of it as mythology before that point.

That's the short version, I probably could have written pages on everything that happened.



> Whats that?


Pantheism is essentially the ideology that god is the natural world. Now, I don't want to speak for NeedReality, so I will let him make any clarifications he needs to.



ardi4nto said:


> I'm a Muslim.
> 
> I agree that a discussion about religion over the internet is a really, really bad idea. There was some threads like this, and it was closed, why start it again?


Sorry, I'm new here, I wasn't aware.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 21, 2011)

It depends how you use it, you can't say it's all bad or all good.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 21, 2011)

Im atheist. I find discussing religion, or more broadly, philosophy as a whole really interesting, although I hope people here will be (more) open minded to others' ideas/beliefs and respect others' contributions rather than instantly flame or instantly close thread (before finding that the thread could have some value) or instantly rant without considering all options/points.

anyway what shall we discuss?


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 21, 2011)

Y'all need to shut up about it.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 21, 2011)

This thread has been up for a couple hours, so I am assuming that means this is fine for now.

I am also atheist, but living in such a Christian area (As in not knowing a single other atheist IRL here), I felt like I always wanted to believe in a god when I was younger, since basically everyone I knew (except my family of course) believed in this. I find religion interesting, and I try to respect other's beliefs, but I honestly like the idea of Asian religions much more than others. I think it's that some Asian religions know that they aren't completely correct, and admit that. Compared to (Not trying to judge here) most Christians who believe what they learned to be the absolute truth. 

My dad, like AgentKuo, grew up strict Catholic but became Atheist. Something that I love my family for, is that they told me that I could believe in anything I want at all, and they wouldn't be 'disappointed' or whatever. But I turned out to be atheist, same as them, so it doesn't matter much. One thing that I personally hate a lot is when in history class at school (public school, btw), they mention something about the bible, or make a reference or something, and I don't understand it at all. It's like the "Everyone's American" thing on this thread. Anyway, those are my thoughts, so I say you put an actual discussion here.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 21, 2011)

Yeah I find the Asian religions rather interesting... Especially their meditation techniques and beliefs about calm in the inner self. They work more on teachings, how to live your life in general, which I find more practical- even as an atheist, I still am fascinated by their meditation techniques and such.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 21, 2011)

I do not believe in god.



collinbxyz said:


> but I honestly like the idea of Asian religions much more than others.


 
Yeah, same. I think the reason for this is that Asian religions are more of philosophies, such as Confucianism.


----------



## chrissyD (Nov 21, 2011)

flying spaghetti monster

that is all


----------



## Dacuba (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm atheist.
But to be honest, I am not able to give a reasoned statement why the wonder of life (more: our consciousness) is better explained by sience than by phenomenons that never can be understood scientificly.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 21, 2011)

FSMism


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 21, 2011)

Waffleism


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 21, 2011)

Before this thread is locked...

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god. prophets, saints, heaven, anything. To go a step further. I don't even believe YOU really believe in god and heaven. You just really hope. Every human over 16 has, in his/her life at least once had the chance to die, whether it's jumping away from a moving vehicle. Being careful not to fall of the roof or a cliff, hell. even putting on your seat belts. If you really believe, no. If you KNOW there is a heaven, and it's better then the world you live now. Why take safety precautions? Why do you go to the doctor when you're sick? Why even try to protect yourself. Why try to protect others? If a crazy murderer kills someone you know, why want him/her to be brought to justice? Thanks them!
The only people who really believe in heaven, who really believe in god, life after death, are those "crazy" fanatics who strap bombs on their bodies, those who hijacked those airplanes on 9/11. They're willing to die for their faith, because they know they'll be rewarded in the afterlife.

(better explanations are on youtube in videos by darkmatter, grappling ignorance and probably many others. I'm not the only one who believes, or actually disbelieves this.)


----------



## Robocopter87 (Nov 21, 2011)

Personally I don't see why people get aggravated over others religion. I can understand that if you blatantly and annoyingly show your faith without any regard for the place you are preaching it at is just rude and is frustrating and isn't right.

However, the fact that religion causes somebody to want to do good is a great thing. Religion is striving for good (most religions are faced towards doing good, not all) and thats just fine with me.

Also, Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is Blind. ~Einstein.


----------



## 4. (Nov 21, 2011)

Well... Technically I am a christian but I don't really believe in god. In my country most babies are "baptized" and then there is this other ceremony when you are 14 where you can "confirm your baptism". Most kids do this, including me, because you get loads of presents. I also did this to please my grandmother. Anyway, I think Bahai is an interesting religion. From Wikipedia... 

"Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of humankind. From these postulates stems the belief that God periodically reveals his will through divine messengers, whose purpose is to transform the character of humankind and develop, within those who respond, moral and spiritual qualities. Religion is thus seen as orderly, unified, and progressive from age to age." 

They also want to establish harmony between science and religion.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 21, 2011)

4. said:


> Well... Technically I am a christian but I don't really believe in god.


 
Nah, you're Atheist. Baptism makes no difference to your stance on the matter.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 21, 2011)

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

- Richard Dawkins


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 21, 2011)

A reason that I am atheist is because of the start or religion. I thought religion started when Greeks (or a similar ancient civilization) believed that everything in nature were gods or something. Like the rain was a god and the ocean was a god, etc. So how did people start believing in Christianity?


----------



## Robocopter87 (Nov 21, 2011)

Well, Christianity started when Jesus was born. It was a change from Judaism over to the belief that the messiah was Jesus. However, people who believe Jesus is not the messiah but still have the same line of religion and are just waiting for their messiah are of the Jewish faith.

How Judaism was started, I'm not entirely sure how to answer that.

Of course, I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## Johan444 (Nov 21, 2011)

What made you christian? How old were you?


----------



## Weston (Nov 21, 2011)

My parents hate me.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 21, 2011)

Weston said:


> My parents hate me.


 
Sorry... Why?


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 21, 2011)

My opinion on religion: it's ****ing retarded.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 21, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> My opinion on religion: it's ****ing retarded.


 
Seconded, but I didn't have the audacity to just come out and say it like that.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 21, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> Why take safety precautions?


 
It's hard to fulfill the Great Commission if you're dead.


----------



## emolover (Nov 21, 2011)

I have a sort of semi-atheist view on religion. To put it simply in a way I do believe in gods, both not in the way gods are typically thought of. Since almost all religions in some way have there god(s) and or/ savior come from the skys by "flying" or "floating" that makes me think of aliens. Alot of the weapons the "gods" use are in ways similar to what weapons aliens could use. 

I started thinking this stuff when I was 10 way before I even knew there were an ass load of shows about it on the History Channel.

There is more to this but if you get what I am talking about in the first paragraph, just look it up. Good page is on Wikipedia.


----------



## MiPiCubed (Nov 21, 2011)

Religious debates are no fun. I force it on no one, and never judge based on beliefs, but I am myself an atheist. Have been since I was about 13 or so, which coincidentally is around when I learned to solve a cube. Could the 2 be related? Lol I'm kidding.


----------



## emolover (Nov 21, 2011)

MiPiCubed said:


> Religious debates are no fun. I force it on no one, and never judge based on beliefs, but I am myself an atheist. Have been since I was about 13 or so, which coincidentally is around when I learned to solve a cube. Could the 2 be related? Lol I'm kidding.


 
Was that when you started heavily using the Internet? I have notice that once you start going to any chat rooms, forums, or any thing like that, your faith is destroyed because you learn things that your parents shelter from.


----------



## MiPiCubed (Nov 21, 2011)

emolover said:


> Was that when you started heavily using the Internet? I have notice that once you start going to any chat rooms, forums, or any thing like that, your faith is destroyed because you learn things that your parents shelter from.


I actually came to the decision by myself. I stared to think hard about many things at that time, and it just made sense to me. Shortly after that I was on the internet, specifically Reddit, and I then became sure of my atheism.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 21, 2011)

Robocopter87 said:


> How Judaism was started, I'm not entirely sure how to answer that.


 
When God made His covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15).


----------



## Hershey (Nov 21, 2011)

MiPiCubed said:


> Have been since I was about 13 or so, which coincidentally is around when I learned to solve a cube. Could the 2 be related? Lol I'm kidding.


 
Hmmm, well I did notice many people on this thread are atheists...



MiPiCubed said:


> Shortly after that I was on the internet, specifically Reddit, and I then became sure of my atheism.


 
/r/atheism 
<3


----------



## cubernya (Nov 21, 2011)

Atheist


----------



## curtishousley (Nov 21, 2011)

I will jump in and provide my view. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or as some know it as Mormon, or LDS. I am 24, this is certainly a choice I have put a lot of effort into and a decision that I have made myself. It is interesting to see others view of God, or lack thereof. My view of God is that he is much more loving and caring than most view, and that most everyone that lives will return to him after this life. I have felt in a very personal way the influence of God, and its really not something that can be explained or put into words.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 21, 2011)

What I personally dislike about some (if not all. I really don't know) Christian religions is that they say that if you believe in Jesus or whatever, you will go to heaven, but will otherwise go to hell. like wtf? So every living thing (if that's what you believe. If not, just think every human) ever to have exist, on earth, and possibly on other planets, before the beginning of religion went to hell after they died? It seems waaayy to unlikely to me. 

I think that the OP should make a poll for what religion you believe in, just to see the percentage cleanly layed out. I would put things like: atheism, christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, hinduism, etc. Just the major ones.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 21, 2011)

curtishousley said:


> I will jump in and provide my view. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or as some know it as Mormon, or LDS. I am 24, this is certainly a choice I have put a lot of effort into and a decision that I have made myself. It is interesting to see others view of God, or lack thereof. My view of God is that he is much more loving and caring than most view, and that most everyone that lives will return to him after this life. I have felt in a very personal way the influence of God, and its really not something that can be explained or put into words.


 
What makes your belief more correct than others?


----------



## riffz (Nov 21, 2011)

Loud and proud atheist. I think the last time a religion thread popped up on here I was still a devout Christian.  I went to church every Sunday, played guitar in the worship band, and went to a weekly bible study that delved into all sorts of apologetics. When I went away to university I stopped attending church. It gave me some time to think clearly and be honest with myself.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 21, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I think that the OP should make a poll for what religion you believe in, just to see the percentage cleanly layed out. I would put things like: atheism...


 
Atheism isn't a religion though.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Nov 21, 2011)

Up until I was about five or six years old, I believed Santa existed. That's the closest I've ever come to believing in a god. I've never viewed any religion to be remotely credible, and for me it is beyond illogical to begin buying into any particular religion. Buddhism is the closest I could conceivably manage, and that's only because I think of it more as philosophy than religion. Apart from attending weddings and funerals, I've never had to go to church. I'm very thankful that my parents, who are both non-religious, didn't try to brainwash me.:tu

Does anyone here believe in a religion that is different from their parents? To what extent do you think your religion is what it is simply by virtue of where you were raised?


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 21, 2011)

Slowpoke22 said:


> Up until I was about five or six years old, I believed Santa existed. That's the closest I've ever come to believing in a god. I've never viewed any religion to be remotely credible, and for me it is beyond illogical to begin buying into any particular religion. Buddhism is the closest I could conceivably manage, and that's only because I think of it more as philosophy than religion. Apart from attending weddings and funerals, I've never had to go to church. I'm very thankful that my parents, who are both non-religious, didn't try to brainwash me.:tu


 
I half-believed that a god existed as I said in an earlier post because everyone I knew but my family believed so. I agree that Buddhism is also more of a philosophy. In fact, my (atheist) dad sometimes listens to audio books about Buddhist teachings. He loves the idea of "the now", and not thinking about the past or the future. 

I think that saying that parents are "brainwashing" is going a bit far, but I do know what you mean. I can just see others getting angry with you for that line.



Slowpoke22 said:


> Does anyone here believe in a religion that is different from their parents? To what extent do you think your religion is what it is simply by virtue of where you were raised?



Not me specifically, but my dad was raised Catholic, but became atheist. His parents (my grandparents) are still very much Christian. I am not sure what made him atheist though.


----------



## insane569 (Nov 21, 2011)

i find religion to be ********
the majority of my family is church of god 7th day and i was too until about a year ago when i started to question faith and religion. the main reason i questioned it was because of one question
Who Created Us. Who Created The Universe. i questioned my god and according to some church friends you cant believe in god if you question him
so i became atheist and continued to question religions. although im very interested in other religions mostly to find connections between them and see if there is actually a god i cant seem to find any solid answers. all are made up gods that cant be proven to exist so i stuck with the thought of
we are the children of evolution


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 21, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though.


 
It's my perspective of religion.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 21, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though.


 
Define religion.
Atheism is a way of thinking, just like any other religion; a point of view....

Also questioning science is interesting- can we really trust science if it's all inductive reasoning? There's the problem...


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 21, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though.


 
You're point? It'll just act as a none of the above option.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 21, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Define religion.
> Atheism is a way of thinking, just like any other religion; a point of view....
> 
> Also questioning science is interesting- can we really trust science if it's all inductive reasoning? There's the problem...


 
The scientific method is extremely thorough at weeding out the false things. If every observation matches up with every other observation then it's relatively safe to assume that said observation is true.


----------



## Julian (Nov 21, 2011)

Here's another side to this debate:


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 21, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> It's a really long story, so I'll try to give the short version.
> Gold Coast Christian Camp was a camp I attended almost every summer. It was great, and I always felt like I was getting closer to Jesus and building a personal relationship with him when I was there. Not to mention, the people were really cool and I made a lot of friends. The counselors were great too. But let me back up a bit. From time to time, while I was a Christian, I was taught to 'question my faith', to test it, to ask God to show himself to me, to let me know that he really is there and really does care about me. And I did, and I felt like he was talking to me or like I felt his presence at least. Anyway, I think the real turning point was after I read Dante's Inferno and some of Dante's Purgatorio. Epic poems, but mythology. Around the same time, I decided I was going to start reading my Bible (because I felt like I didn't do that often enough). And I just flipped to a random book, which turned out to be Ezekiel. And I started reading it. And what I was reading sounded like mythology, like something I would read in The Odyssey or The Vedas, or some other Epic poem or mythology story. That's when it first hit me. 'maybe the Bible isn't meant to be taken completely literally. Maybe just some stuff is historical and some is just supposed to be metaphor, like the mythology parts are metaphorical. After this, I got to thinking more about it. I started watching atheist deconversion stories on YouTube (I don't remember why I did this in the first place), and I found them extremely interesting. It was like what they were saying was so new to me, these ideas were so different. So I started questioning my faith even more. I started to ask God to show me that he exists, to give me a sign to let me know that he was with me. And he never did. This is when I first thought 'Maybe god doesn't exist'. And for about...6 months, I think, I changed my views to strictly agnostic. I didn't know if there was a god or not, and I didn't think it was fair to myself to claim there was one when I really wasn't sure anymore. During this time I started to study flaws and contradictions in the Bible, and one concept I remember thinking about was 'God doesn't follow his own rules' (I'm not gonna elaborate). This got me kind of thinking about things like 'is God a sinner, then?' and stuff like that. Just critically thinking about ideas and principles of my faith. That year, at camp my counselor was a guy named Steven, who was also the pastors son at my friends church. And he was seriously the coolest counselor I ever had. I told my cabin mates that I was agnostic, and my counselor was just incredibly supportive. He told me he knew what I was going through and that I had to like figure things out for myself and stuff. Not long after camp I started thinking more and more. And I don't remember when it happened exactly, but I spoke out loud "I am an atheist". And it made sense. It was weird, and it felt extremely awkward, but it was the truth, and I realized it at that moment. I was an atheist, and there was nothing I could do about it. It was simply what made sense at that time.
> 
> I should clarify, I was never taught that the Bible was 100% literal, but I was taught that it was 100% true. I knew that some story's were only meant as parables, but I never thought of it as mythology before that point.
> ...



That is really an awesome testimony.

I did sort of go through the same thing you did, I too in church was tought to test my faith. I tried and tried but never really heard Gods voice. For a while I questioned my faith, and questioned if god was really real. Then in grade 8 I moved my guitar lessons to a different date and started going to youth more often. The messages the director gave really moved me, and I can hear him speaking to me. 



d4m4s74 said:


> Before this thread is locked...
> 
> I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god. prophets, saints, heaven, anything. To go a step further. I don't even believe YOU really believe in god and heaven. You just really hope. Every human over 16 has, in his/her life at least once had the chance to die, whether it's jumping away from a moving vehicle. Being careful not to fall of the roof or a cliff, hell. even putting on your seat belts. If you really believe, no. If you KNOW there is a heaven, and it's better then the world you live now. Why take safety precautions? Why do you go to the doctor when you're sick? Why even try to protect yourself. Why try to protect others? If a crazy murderer kills someone you know, why want him/her to be brought to justice? Thanks them!
> The only people who really believe in heaven, who really believe in god, life after death, are those "crazy" fanatics who strap bombs on their bodies, those who hijacked those airplanes on 9/11. They're willing to die for their faith, because they know they'll be rewarded in the afterlife.
> ...


 
As I stated earlyer I am a Christian.

The reason that we don't just, kill ourselves, is because god's purpose for us is that we can spread the word of the gospel. Also, not everyone goes to heaven, those that go to heaven are those that gave their lives to christ. Plus, the people that "strap bombs onto themselves" claim that they do it for faith, when really, the bible says that suicide and murder is a sin. Their going to hell.

At my church, we have had the debate, "Why don't we all just kill ourselves? and go to heaven?", well because God put us here for a reason, if he wanted us in heaven, he would have just put us there in the first place.

We have also discussed, do Islams and Christians worship the same god? I would like to use that as another "question" to discuss.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 21, 2011)

Since the koran is an expansion of the bible, which is an expansion of the torah. it's safe to assume it's the same god.


----------



## Weston (Nov 21, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> Sorry... Why?


 
Because they're close-minded.


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 21, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> Since the koran is an expansion of the bible, which is an expansion of the torah. it's safe to assume it's the same god.


 
I personally think they do, but many people think they don't.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 21, 2011)

Christian God of the Bible: Trinitarian (Father, Spirit, Son [Jesus])
Islamic God of the Koran: Does not include Jesus (just a prophet)

Not the same God.


----------



## Escher (Nov 21, 2011)

riffz said:


> It gave me some time to think clearly and be honest with myself.


 
And smoke a bunch of green xD

I guess I can identify with 'atheist-agnostic'. My dad is the same, and my mum regularly goes to Catholic church and would identify as a Catholic, though she's happy to oppose some of the sermons and many of the church's public policies on ethical issues. We all used to go to Quaker meetings regularly, and I went to a Catholic secondary school for 5 years. Although I'm skeptical of a Judeo-Christian being, it's hard to be an out-and-out atheist when my mum is better informed on the debate than me, despite doing undergrad Philosophy...

I don't believe that religion is valueless - I just think many people take a bad approach towards it, and it results both in many so-called scientists mistaking correlation (religious fundamentalists) with causation (religion makes you stupid), and religious people taking a far too narrow approach that creates many holes in their belief structure.

Like some others here, I think the mythology is fascinating.


----------



## ianography (Nov 21, 2011)

I personally am an Atheist. Up until a few months to my thirteenth birthday, I had been Christian all my life. I soon became agnostic, and about two months ago, became Atheist. I personally believe that the universe was created due to:

1) Science
2) Dumb luck



chrissyD said:


> flying spaghetti monster
> 
> that is all


 
:tu



ben1996123 said:


> My opinion on religion: it's ****ing retarded.


 
:tu



emolover said:


> Was that when you started heavily using the Internet? I have notice that once you start going to any chat rooms, forums, or any thing like that, your faith is destroyed because you learn things that your parents shelter from.


 
I've noticed that too, although I don't believe that it is necessarily from experiences that parents try to keep their children unexposed to. But, the majority of my friends that use the Internet on a regular basis do happen to be Atheist.



curtishousley said:


> I will jump in and provide my view. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or as some know it as Mormon, or LDS. I am 24, this is certainly a choice I have put a lot of effort into and a decision that I have made myself. It is interesting to see others view of God, or lack thereof. My view of God is that he is much more loving and caring than most view, and that most everyone that lives will return to him after this life. I have felt in a very personal way the influence of God, and its really not something that can be explained or put into words.


 


PatrickJameson said:


> What makes your belief more correct than others?


 
I don't believe that he's saying that his beliefs are better, but that according to them, God is more loving than most others view him to be.



Hershey said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though.








Also, if you want to read a paper about religion from a voice-cracking 14-year-old, here it is (which coincidentally I handed in today):



Spoiler



Religion; the building block of civilization. It can inspire, and destroy. It is this powerful force that has enhanced the capabilities and motivation of man. Religion brings us together, yet also divides us on many levels. Since its beginning, it has driven us to meet our goals through both fear and inspiration. Religious zealotry has been the start of many wars, as well as individual persecution for those with other beliefs. Nowadays, we could get along without it, but, without religion, we, as a whole, would be nothing. 

Life before religion was very uncivilized and disorderly. Besides nomadic groups, there were no big assemblies or organizations. Many people didn’t help others, and it truly was survival of the fittest. The concept of religion, and the belief of a deity(s), turned this around and shaped the human race. Strict religious beliefs have somewhat decreased as more and more people form their own opinions. But, it also increases as more people take religion too seriously and get the wrong ideas and beliefs (i.e. Westboro Baptist Church and their hate-filled message). These trends indicate that religions’ popularity increase and decrease over time. This is proven a lot of the time in the media, with both religious and anti-religious bands and songs only being an example.

There is no known creator of religion. It could have been one sole individual’s idea, or an entire group’s vision. All that we know is that 11,600 years ago, at a small, cleared out site in Southern Turkey, the fist religious monument Göbekli Tepe was thrust into the world, and religion was born. Göbekli Tepe is a large tower covered in hieroglyphics and is made of tons and tons of stone. As most humans were nomadic peoples during this time, belonging to separate, small groups, the fact that this creation was started, or even finished for that matter, was a remarkable and mind-boggling feat amongst the human race. As for why Göbekli Tepe was constructed, we will never really know. Excavators and researchers all over the world believe that an earth-shattering event, such as the Ice Age ending, was a key factor for religion’s creation. The people that built Göbekli Tepe possibly believed that a deity, or deities, took pity on them and spared their lives, and for that, they must worship the deity(s) until the end of time. Personally, however, I believe that one saw a creature or object of some sorts, and had mistaken it for a god. 

If I were to improve religion, I would make most of it more similar to that of Buddhism, for I believe in their general feeling of “if you are kind to me, I shall be kind to you”, and that more of us should live by this. With this, there would hopefully be less discrimination and hate that religions have brought, such as sexism and homophobia. Two quotes from the Bible that are large originators of hate are “men are worth more than women” and “you shall not lie with a male as you would with a woman. It is an abomination”. These, of course, don’t even make up half of the reason for this pointless hate. If the properties of Buddhism were to be implemented, though, a good portion of hate would be gone.

Of course, no religion is perfect. It can be very oppressive and can divide others (dividing, mainly, of different religious groups). Imagine there are two different religions. Religion A believes that they are the best religion out of the two, and because Religion B doesn’t have the same beliefs, Religion A thinks they are better, despite Religion B wanting to be friends or good acquaintances. It is much like that of bullying on the playground. This could be due to ignorance, selfishness, being conceited (or all of the options). Also, misconceptions and horrible mistakes can lead to disastrous events, such as 9/11. While the terrorists were crazy and delusional, what drove them to attack America was religion and their erroneous visions of a wonderful world in the afterlife (let it be known that I am not insulting any individual belonging to the Muslim religion).

As you can see, religion, just like everything else in the world, has its pros and cons. Nothing can be perfect, and nor can religion. It has created our world as we know it (from an unknown source and for an unknown reason), and has potentially kept us from making peace with others. If not for the birth of religion at a small site in Southern Turkey, we would either remain to be a savage species or be extinct. Nowadays, without religion, we could easily survive and still be relatively the same. We could even be a little less discriminatory. Therefore, you should believe what you want and not let anybody tell you otherwise. Just remember: “if you are kind to me, I shall be kind to you.”


----------



## n00bcub3r (Nov 21, 2011)

I was a "christian" until about since school started this year, then i became a believer in Christ Jesus. The reason I say "christian" is because on every sunday, before school started this year, my mom would have to drag me out of bed to go to church, and even in church, i never payed attention, i just goofed off. All that changed when I was introduced to youth group. Youth group is basically like teachings of the bible from young adults to young adults(even though im only twelve). I at first just thought of it as a place just to goof off with some friends. Then, on my first youth group, we split off into groups based on grade and sex. My instructor was a guy named Alex Kim. He was the person that really inspired me to finally become a better christian. After that first week, every Sunday, I would be happy to go to church and I would pack my bible and a notebook and pen(I finally started taking notes). I also now actually read my bible and pray daily. Because of Alex Kim, I now really believe in God, the Bible, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Wow, just realized that was the longest thing that I had ever typed on this forum..


----------



## DavidEBowyerJr (Nov 21, 2011)

Awesome answer noob. I am an associate pastor and always tell my students that religion is bad, but a relationship with Jesus is what is needed. I feel very bad for those who once believed but have since fallen away. I am praying for you brother and the other Christians and believers out there. I love Jesus period. If anyone else wants to know about him send me a message and I will talk to you about him.


----------



## Shortey (Nov 21, 2011)




----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm Christian (I'll specify if anyone wants me to).
I honestly find respectful conversation interesting but in all honesty we all realize that cannot exist on the internet.Lets take lolben ******baggery, that's what is truthfully what makes the internet non-conducive to any real conversation. I have a really weird belief system that I'll only explain if anyone is actually interested. But other than that I won't say anything.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> I'll only explain if anyone is actually interested.


 
Go on...


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

It seems like whenever anyone has a "weird" belief system or "my/their own" belief system, it's just a bunch of garbage that they thought up by themselves and thought "Hey! That sorta makes sense! Now I can be a religious hipster!"


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> Deleted.
> Decided that this post was a bad idea. lol


 
Most posts in this thread are bad ideas. This whole thread is a terrible idea.

"lol religion is lol"
"no you"
^ the whole thread


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Nov 22, 2011)

Well to sum it up I'm Deist and don't feel like posting a multiple paragraph post for why I am.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

Recently I looked more into Judaism (and am interested, if any Jews on here would like to teach me more about their beliefs), and quite frankly, I find it fascinating (in a good way). If any of the western-religions are 'progressive', I would say Judaism is it. Their beliefs are just so different than I thought.

Personally, with religion, I just don't like to offend people. I will defend myself and my arguments if necessary, but I don't like it to come to that. I like discussing religion, not agruing about it. I like when people share ideas an stuff, and don't have to be about "I'm right, though" or "well, your beliefs are ********" (even if they are).



Julian said:


> Here's another side to this debate:


 YAY! Qualia Soup! 



insane569 said:


> i find religion to be ********
> the majority of my family is church of god 7th day and i was too until about a year ago when i started to question faith and religion. the main reason i questioned it was because of one question
> Who Created Us. Who Created The Universe. i questioned my god and according to some church friends you cant believe in god if you question him
> so i became atheist and continued to question religions. although im very interested in other religions mostly to find connections between them and see if there is actually a god i cant seem to find any solid answers. all are made up gods that cant be proven to exist so i stuck with the thought of
> we are the children of evolution


This makes me think of the question, "what's more important? Faith or Truth?"



collinbxyz said:


> I think that the OP should make a poll for what religion you believe in, just to see the percentage cleanly layed out. I would put things like: atheism, christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, hinduism, etc. Just the major ones.


 Will do. (How do I make it a poll?)



Hershey said:


> Atheism isn't a religion though.


I'll just make the poll like "What are your views on religion?" or something ambiguous like that.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Nov 22, 2011)

I think if people stay on topic this thread could be interesting and won't end up like the other threads similar to this. 

Personally, I'm agnostic but I go to youth group every single Saturday. I was kind of christian (went to church every sunday) until I was 5 then my parents stopped going to church which means I stopped going. A couple years ago (about a year before I started cubing) a friend mentioned that I should go to youth group to meet some friends. I did and I'm still kind of stuck in the middle. I'm testing to see if he is real but at least I'm willing to give him a chance. Now that I finished writing that deism just popped into my mind....


----------



## emolover (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> It seems like whenever anyone has a "weird" belief system or "my/their own" belief system, it's just a bunch of garbage that they thought up by themselves and thought "Hey! That sorta makes sense! Now I can be a religious hipster!"



I bet that was to me!


----------



## gogozerg (Nov 22, 2011)

I used to believe in James Hetfield. But I'm not even sure anymore, after their last album.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> I think if people stay on topic this thread could be interesting and won't end up like the other threads similar to this.
> 
> Personally, I'm agnostic but I go to youth group every single Saturday. I was kind of christian (went to church every sunday) until I was 5 then my parents stopped going to church which means I stopped going. A couple years ago (about a year before I started cubing) a friend mentioned that I should go to youth group to meet some friends. I did and I'm still kind of stuck in the middle. I'm testing to see if he is real but at least I'm willing to give him a chance. Now that I finished writing that deism just popped into my mind....


I used to go to youth group at my friends church. I still enjoy things like that, even though I'm an atheist. Hanging out, eating food, playing games, and learning about Christianity is enjoyable.
(I know other religions have youth groups, but I've only ever been to a Christian one.)


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

I notice atheism, anti-theism and nihilism are listed as one choice but agnostic is a separate choice. Why?

Also you left out a few major world religions in favor of a couple of particular branches of Christianity.


----------



## uhallgeo (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't know why I'm jumping in on this but..... for what it's worth....

Most people I know who 'claim' to be atheist still call to god when the chips are down. Most people I know who 'claim' to be religious are anything but (except on Sunday). I choose to go a third path... wait and see. And, in the meantime....when the opportunity presents itself, I go to church, observe the sabbath, pray to Mecca, basically whatever I can to cover all bases.

-george


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

So what I need to clear up first is that, though it is commonly stereotyped that your parents force you into Christianity, I was given a choice before confirmation as to whether or not I wanted to fully join the Catholic Church). I have to say that I honestly thought about it especially when one of my friends from church decided not to go through with it and said he didn't believe. That set aside I will continue.

A very common attack of all Christian churches is the bible and interpretation. I personally think that much of it is not meant to be 100% literal but rather, are stories to outline certain philosophies. This goes hand in hand with my argument against "pure" creation science (evolution is definitely plausible). That being said, where many Christians see science as a threat ,I see it as the means by which God (whatever you believe he is) acts within this universe (we go through processes in order to do things so why wouldn't a God).
^(Almost all of my philosophies are based off of what is mentioned above.)

As for my thoughts for religious discussion, I support respectful conversation.(This being said I'll use the example of how I used to really like thunderf00t but then realized how much of an @$$hole he really is after watching more videos).I am against blatant insults in argument, and personally am against the "rational" movements which Atheists have, because of the connotations of claiming that they are the only rational ones.

That is all I have to say generally, anything else would be me getting very specific and would be kind of awkward.


----------



## TheMachanga (Nov 22, 2011)

Catholic. I like that I'm encouraged to believe in what I want to believe about the world, like evolution, because the beginning of Genesis could very well be an analogy or something. I still have to believe we're all descendants from A and E though, but yeah.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 22, 2011)

Agnosticism isn't a position comparable to theism or atheism. It pertains to what you 'know' as opposed to what you believe. It's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist ot a gnostic theist.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Agnosticism isn't a position comparable to theism or atheism. It pertains to what you 'know' as opposed to what you believe. It's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist ot a gnostic theist.


 
"An agnostic is just an atheist without balls." ~Stephen Colbert


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

Penn Jillette quote (with bad language):
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/7d2j/


----------



## Escher (Nov 22, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> "An agnostic is just an atheist without balls." ~Stephen Colbert


 
"Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit."
Oscar Wilde


----------



## drewsopchak (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm an anti-theist.


----------



## palmcubes (Nov 22, 2011)

Judiasm was never started. according to numbers brought down in the bible there was a god fearing persen in evrey genaration. noah was alive till metushela shem and aber the 3 of wich lived till the times of abrahm. abram independitly discovered that the idols of the day couldn't be gods. he discovered one G-d and spread the faith.



ZamHalen said:


> That being said, where many Christians see science as a threat ,I see it as the means by which God (whatever you believe he is) acts within this universe (we go through processes in order to do things so why wouldn't a God).
> ^(Almost all of my philosophies are based off of what is mentioned above.)
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## drewsopchak (Nov 22, 2011)

agnostic is "lazy man's atheist" science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. You know 9/11 showed us how virtuess religious certainty or dare i say faith can be.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Catholic all the way!!!  Very traditional and proud!  St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, GK Chesterton, Tolkein, and St. Augustine ftw!  

Latin is awesome. Hands down. Amo Deum plus quam cubicus.

And to anybody who says Catholics dont have meditation, and Asian religions do, thats ridiculous. Look up the divine office. 

Ok so what type of evidence do you want of God's existence? I cant prove it scientifically... what about using logic? ;P


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Ok so what type of evidence do you want of God's existence? I cant prove it scientifically... what about using logic? ;P


Science can't get any closer to 'logic'.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Ok so what type of evidence do you want of God's existence? I cant prove it scientifically... what about using logic? ;P


 
I always start with this question: what makes your belief more correct than other beliefs? And by that I mean theistic beliefs, nothing to do with atheism yet.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> I always start with this question: what makes your belief more correct than other beliefs? And by that I mean theistic beliefs, nothing to do with atheism yet.


 
Sort of similar to this;

On most websites that I found by google, they say that 30-35 % of the world is Christian, making that 65-70% non-Christian. How do you know that you are correct? Is there ANY proof? Christianity wasn't even close to the first religion. So what makes it so special and truthful?


----------



## Systemdertoten (Nov 22, 2011)

Atheist here. Kinda lonely here in Honduras where 97% of the population is Catholic and the rest is Protestant.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

shelley said:


> I notice atheism, anti-theism and nihilism are listed as one choice but agnostic is a separate choice. Why?
> 
> Also you left out a few major world religions in favor of a couple of particular branches of Christianity.


 Yeah, you think I should just bunch JW and LDS with Christianity and add Buddhism and Hunduism?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> I always start with this question: what makes your belief more correct than other beliefs? And by that I mean theistic beliefs, nothing to do with atheism yet.


That's a very good question, but honestly, it will not register in any person's mind whose beliefs have not been "proven wrong" in their own minds or those who are not questioning why they believe what they believe in the first place (close-minded). To them, the rest of us who say everyone needs to have an open mind are "missing out on the good stuff," too stubborn to admit they are the only ones right, "too evil to see the light," or just too dumb to believe the "higher truth" that they know to be true.

I know you know this very well, but I was just writing out what I believe your statement is implying.


----------



## Andreaillest (Nov 22, 2011)

No Buddhism on the poll. 
Live life the way you want and live it well.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

Here's the thing, I don't know if I'm right. In all reality no one knows for sure (not atheists, not Muslims, not Buddhists , not Jews, not Christians,and not anyone). But we have the ability to believe (or disbelieve) what we want and in the end we will probably never know who was right. I may as well go on with my idea of "heaven" (this may mean nothing to some). I don't think that people who don't know or don't believe are excluded. I've seen people who claim they are good do bad and I've seen people who are seen as bad do what is right. So why would someone who does nothing but good for others be condemned for what they do not know?(NOTE:This is from an "If I'm right perspective" I'm not saying I'm right).
That's one to think about for the retribution pushers.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 22, 2011)

The poll says "Chrisianity" lol. I could fix it but I don't want to offend those who follow the teachings of Chris.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> The poll says "Chrisianity" lol. I could fix it but I don't want to offend those who follow the teachings of Chris.


 
Well doesn't that look bad lol. Well I gotta say Chris is a pretty cool dude.
Seriously though I really have to stop just skimming through stuff (yes I skim through one word choices lol).


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

Alright, lemme change the poll...how do I change the poll?



Muesli said:


> Agnosticism isn't a position comparable to theism or atheism. It pertains to what you 'know' as opposed to what you believe. It's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist ot a gnostic theist.


Agnosticism is a view on religion. The poll is about views on religion. A person, as you mentioned can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> I always start with this question: what makes your belief more correct than other beliefs? And by that I mean theistic beliefs, nothing to do with atheism yet.



Because God came as the Son and founded it.

If God exists, there is a religion that HE founded which leads to heaven. Catholicism is it. It gives you everything you need to get to heaven. I mean it fills the spiritual needs which man hungers for completely. God gives purpose to your life through the Catholic Church. Without God, life is pointless. (please note I said spiritual, not emotional.... your decisions shouldnt be based on emotion. thats ridiculous...)

so yeah, thats why I believe the Catholic Church is... in your words... err "more correct"... before you go denying and saying "no its not" please look into what youre denying. I mean really, most people have a very warped view of the Church of "OMG PEDOPHILE PRIESTS"....

Catholics believe in order to be saved you must be baptized (not only this, but its the first step). you have to belong to the Church in some way... 

You belong to the Church by:

Baptism of water. (sacramental.. Protestants included )
Baptism of desire. (you desire to be baptized, but cant, or do your very best to lead a holy life, despite the fact that you are misinformed or misunderstand)
Baptism of blood (desiring to be baptized, but being martyred before thats possible... we've been killed lots for our beliefs... with the grace of God, I'd gladly die for Him. thats a little bold, eh?)

Lastly... Archbishop Fulton Sheen puts it very well. 

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” 

So yes, many people have a flawed perception of the Catholic Church. There have been very sinful people in the Catholic Church, but their actions are in no way justified. 

Oh, and Im Catholic cuz of the girls.  the St. girls I mean. lol. St. Terese or Liseux is pretty freaking awesome. xD

ok sorry, I probably talked your ear off... hahaa!  pretty obvious Im a "religious nut". ;D


----------



## ChrisBird (Nov 22, 2011)

He has spoken, the almighty Chris states that cubes must be made of bacon and nutella from now on.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

lol Chris!!! xD I love bacon!!!

omgosh...

1. Atheists say God does not exist.
2. Bacon exists.
3. Bacon is good.
4. Therefore God must exist.

hehehehe ;P


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Here's the thing, I don't know if I'm right. In all reality no one knows for sure (not atheists, not Muslims, not Buddhists , not Jews, not Christians,and not anyone).


Which is why atheists are probably right.



ZamHalen said:


> I've seen people who claim they are good do bad and I've seen people who are seen as bad do what is right. So why would someone who does nothing but good for others be condemned for what they do not know?
> That's one to think about for the retribution pushers.


Religion has little to do with people doing good or bad things. If religion is the only thing thats keeping you from killing people, you belong in a mental hospital.



zmikecuber said:


> Because God came as the Son and founded it.
> 
> If God exists, there is a religion that HE founded which leads to heaven. Catholicism is it.


 
Great evidence bro


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> Great evidence bro



why thank you mah dear Weston! 

seriously, you need to take the initiative yourself to examine the Church and decide for yourself. ;P

hey your name reminds me of that guy in CS Lewis' book named weston... err wait.. that guy was possessed....

*cough cough* no I didnt mean anything by that!!! really! ;P


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> seriously, you need to take the initiative yourself to examine the Church and decide for yourself. ;P


 Great assumptions bro


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Nov 22, 2011)

That is the only kind of evidence anyone can provide.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Nov 22, 2011)

i want to vote for Christianity but it is not in the poll.  



ChrisBird said:


> He has spoken, the almighty Chris states that cubes must be made of bacon and nutella from now on.


 
all hail Chris!


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> That is the only kind of evidence anyone can provide.



great evidence bro


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Because God came as the Son and founded it.



Yes, this is what you believe. My question was, what makes that belief more correct than others?

There are people just like you who believe a similar story with a similar book written during a similar time. They believe this just as strongly, if not stronger than you believe that your god came down through his son's body and created Christianity. What makes your's correct and their's wrong?

And I am not initially denying anything at the moment. I'm just asking that question.



zmikecuber said:


> ok sorry, I probably talked your ear off... hahaa!  pretty obvious Im a "religious nut". ;D


 
No worries .


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 22, 2011)

I think with religion, it's important to not just look around and say, "Oh, I like this system of beliefs, it's convenient for me, so this is what I believe." There has to be one absolute truth; to say all religions are correct or different paths to the same destination is logically unsound. So instead of just going with your feelings and molding things to your point of view, you should be looking for the truth...


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 22, 2011)

The poll options are so funny.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Yes, this is what you believe. My question was, what makes that belief more correct than others?
> 
> There are people just like you who believe a similar story with a similar book written during a similar time. They believe this just as strongly, if not stronger than you believe that your god came down through his son's body and created Christianity. What makes your's correct and their's wrong?



well first of all, its not just MY opinion. its the Catholic Church, which has existed for a VERY long time.

the historical parts of the bible claim to be written by eye witness writers.

how do we know any history? we find that somebody wrote it down... we find things which prove this.

how do we know any history for sure? I guess we dont know it for sure, but I dont see anybody here claiming that Alexander the Great in reality never existed...


EDIT: sorry for the caps locks... I know I hate it when people do that too.... heh heh


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 22, 2011)

unitarian-jew


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> well first of all, its not just MY opinion. its the Catholic Church, which has existed for a VERY long time.
> 
> the historical parts of the bible claim to be written by eye witness writers.
> 
> ...


 
We typically piece together history through archaeological evidence. That could mean old books or ruins or anything else that could lead us in a decent direction of evidence. 

Regardless, you haven't separated your religion/church's belief from other similar religions'/churches' beliefs. Do you know what I mean? The Koran, Torah, and most other religious writings have similar evidence to that which you describe above. What makes your religion/church's belief MORE believable than other religions and churches?


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> Which is why atheists are probably right.


Truthfully that says little and in all honesty that's an arrogant assumption to make. You're basically saying since I'm not sure you must be right.


Weston said:


> Religion has little to do with people doing good or bad things. If religion is the only thing thats keeping you from killing people, you belong in a mental hospital.


 
You misinterpreted what I was saying there I was referring to my idea of heaven not directly to religion.Also I must mention that your example is a little bit extreme.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> well first of all, its not just MY opinion. its the Catholic Church, which has existed for a VERY long time.
> 
> the historical parts of the bible claim to be written by eye witness writers.
> 
> ...


 
Most other religions have been around for an EVEN LONGER time...

I am not doubting this next part, but how do you know this? 

Find things that prove what? That people learn history from others who wrote stuff down? Isn't that obvious??? You know we find out about history from so many other things too...

That's an awful comparison. I don't see anyone here claiming that Alexander the Great existed... A god and the universe compared to a king/story.


----------



## SpeedSolve (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Truthfully that says little and in all honesty that's an arrogant assumption to make. Your basically saying since I'm not sure you must be right.
> 
> 
> You misinterpreted what I was saying there I was referring to my idea of heaven not directly to religion.Also I must mention that your example is a little bit extreme.


 
Agreed.

I'm a Christian.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Truthfully that says little and in all honesty that's an arrogant assumption to make. Your basically saying since I'm not sure you must be right.


If none of the religions have convincing evidence of anything, it would be most reasonable to reject all of them.
How is that arrogant?


----------



## esquimalt1 (Nov 22, 2011)

What would a God make it so that in order to not burn in hell, you must accept the teachings of some book written 2,000 years ago?

If the God expects people to worship it, it should reveal itself so that there's no need to have believe in something that there's not a shred of evidence for.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> If none of the religions have convincing evidence of anything, it would be most reasonable to reject all of them.
> How is that arrogant?


 
Absolutes are usually terrible in these types of arguments.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Absolutes are usually terrible in these types of arguments.


 
Yes, but that was just a response to him saying that no religion is sure of anything.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> If none of the religions have convincing evidence of anything, it would be most reasonable to reject all of them.
> How is that arrogant?


 The arrogance doesn't lie in the evidence, it stems from the argument that your ideas must be correct due to assumption.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> The arrogance doesn't lie in the evidence, it stems from the argument that your ideas must be correct due to assumption.


 
Due to an assumption that you made...


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Truthfully that says little and in all honesty that's an arrogant assumption to make. You're basically saying since I'm not sure you must be right.


 
You're saying that there's more proof that there is a god, than there isn't? Think realistically. All the proof points to no god existing. Science proved how the universe began. No god in that anymore. We also know that there are trillions of other stars and planets out there, making us NOT the center of the universe, like people used to believe, suggesting less proof (if any at all now) that a god exists. So there is soooo much more proof that a god _doesn't_ exist, than one does. So why not make that assumption?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> Science proved how the universe began.



Well, *ehm*, they're working on it.

Also chill bros, threads get locked when things get uncivilized. Just saying.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Well, *ehm*, they're working on it.
> 
> Also chill bros, threads get locked when things get uncivilized. Just saying.


 
Fine, for the most part. But I believe there are a few theories for how the big bang started that DONT involve religion.


----------



## emolover (Nov 22, 2011)

You know what's funny to think of yet in a way plausible?

Is that Moses the writer of the 5 books of the Torah and lead the Jews to the promise lands, could have consumed something in which made him hallucinate those giving him this visions of the promise lands. After repeated ingestion of said hallucimnogenic substance his mind lost sense if reality thus leading him to these statements and ideas about god and religion.

Im not saying that happened, I am just saying that could be where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from making it a big load of ********. Again I am not saying that happened, I'm am just saying that is *not* an impossibility.


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> Science proved how the universe began. No god in that anymore.


Sorry, that's not a very valid argument. Yes, this is an expanding universe and all matter traces back to a singularity ~13.7 billion years ago. 
But there are religious people that believe in the Big Bang, they just believe the Big Bang was God/caused by God. I'm not one of these people by the way...


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> Due to an assumption that you made...


I'm referring to the assumption of: no *current* evidence =impossible. Lets simplify this argument to the existence of a God.We as humans (and possibly creations) cannot fully prove or disprove either stance. Let's tag onto the big bang (yes another very probable theory). Now lets take a few basic ideas such as every effect has a cause. Now we can say that the big bang was caused by endless causes and effects(both finite things therefore unable to be infinite) strung together or that somewhere along the line there was an an unmovable mover (a god/ or infinite, force call it what you will.)In the end until we truly know for sure anything which may point at a God or lack thereof (this is a very vague example), it is left to personal philosophy and beliefs of people to decide what they have faith in or have no faith in.(I think I got off topic)
Never mind while I was writing it it came up so lol.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

Zane_C said:


> Sorry, that's not a very valid argument. Yes, this is an expanding universe and all matter traces back to a singularity ~13.7 billion years ago.
> But there are religious people that believe in the Big Bang, they just believe the Big Bang was God/caused by God. I'm not one of these people by the way...


 
I understand this, but as I said before, I am pretty sure there are theories that cover everything about the big bang, scientifically.


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I understand this, but as I said before, I am pretty sure there are theories that cover everything about the big bang, scientifically.


Not everything. There's still the question of how all the matter got there in the first place.


----------



## emolover (Nov 22, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I understand this, but as I said before, I am pretty sure there are theories that cover everything about the big bang, scientifically.


 
But than what caused the big bang? I know there ideas of matter/anti, or the universal sheet therory(multiple universes, big bang starts when sheets come in contact). But how did those things happen? 

We just don't know.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

Zane_C said:


> Not everything. There's still the question of how all the matter got there in the first place.


 
Okay, my bad.

Oh yes, and some people will say something like, "But how did nothing turn into something during the big bang? How did it start? The only explanation is that God made the big bang." What I have to say to this, is that no god would exist if nothing became something. So if you say that nothing could become something, so god made it; what made god? So everything must have started from nothing, no matter what, even if there is a god. The god must have come from something, which may have come from something, and so on, until it comes to nothing. So the big bang could be from nothing, no problem. 

so basically @ Zane's response, it didn't have to come from a god. Everything must have come from nothing.




emolover said:


> But than what caused the big bang? I know there ideas of matter/anti, or the universal sheet therory(multiple universes, big bang starts when sheets come in contact). But how did those things happen?
> 
> We just don't know.


 
I am not saying that we do know (I am sorry that I did earlier), but it must all of come from nothing, even god if it existed. So if you believe in god, how did god come to be? Nothing. So if you believe that, you should be able to believe that without a god, the universe could also come from nothing.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> I'm referring to the assumption of: no *current* evidence =impossible.


I never said impossible. It's generally a good idea not to base your beliefs on a chance that something might be discovered. If current evidence suggests something, your beliefs will be consistent with that evidence. If evidence changes, you adjust your beliefs accordingly. All I said was that since you guys can't present convincing evidence for the existence of your god, it would be most reasonable to not believe in the existence of your god, AKA be an atheist.



ZamHalen said:


> We as humans (and possibly creations) cannot fully prove or disprove either stance. Let's tag onto the big bang (yes another very probable theory). Now lets take a few basic ideas such as every effect has a cause. Now we can say that the big bang was caused by endless causes and effects strung together or that somewhere along the line there was an an unmovable mover (a god/ or infinite, force call it what you will.)


This sounds strangely like the beginning of the cosmological argument.



ZamHalen said:


> In the end until we truly know for sure anything which may point at a God or lack thereof (this is a very vague example), it is left to personal philosophy and beliefs of people to decide what they have faith in or have no faith in.(I think I got off topic)


What? No…
If you don't know something, you cant just make stuff up. Thats dumb.

The default/neutral position on the existence of a god is to not believe. Until you present convincing evidence, it's most reasonable to not believe.
I said that atheists are "probably right" because the only tool I have to determine my beliefs is current knowledge. The possibility of future knowledge is irrelevant to me.


----------



## emolover (Nov 22, 2011)

It's an infinite paradox in which we say god caused it. God often will stand for something we nothing or very little about.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston you keep taking everything to extremes. 
Well I'm done for the night if this thread still exists I'll keep posting.

With the chance of this thread being closed I'd like to mention that I hold most atheists in a place of respect for their willingness to give their beliefs (or not beliefs) and argue them adamantly. I hold them in even higher respect if they're respectful of others beliefs (though there are hardly any like that.)
That being said I might be back later.


----------



## Cube Equation (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm agnostic. Simply because I don't believe that the existence or non-existence of God can be proven. In fact, I don't think anything could be proven with absolute certainty without making some kind of basic assumptions.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 22, 2011)

esquimalt1 said:


> * there's not a shred of evidence for.*



Um, there are huge amounts of evidence out there that supports the bible. If you wants some, PM me. 



collinbxyz said:


> Okay, my bad.
> 
> Oh yes, and some people will say something like, "But how did nothing turn into something during the big bang? How did it start? The only explanation is that God made the big bang." What I have to say to this, is that no god would exist if nothing became something. So if you say that nothing could become something, so god made it; *what made god?* So everything must have started from nothing, no matter what, even if there is a god. The god must have come from something, which may have come from something, and so on, until it comes to nothing. So the big bang could be from nothing, no problem.


 
Many scientist believe that for life, matter and whatever to exist there need to be something eternal out there. Out of all the searching they have done they still haven't found anything.

Solution: There is a god out there.


For any sciencey people who believes the bible doesn't exist because science states the opposite, have a look at the following links or/and PM me. The below links are written by scientist who take the bible literally.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/daily-articles
http://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index

Also here is a debate between Christians and atheist in how the earth and the universe originated.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf


----------



## chris w (Nov 22, 2011)

"Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. 
Neo: What truth? 
Boy: There is no spoon. 
Neo: There is no spoon? 
Boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself." - The Matrix (just thought I'd add this perspective to the mix)... but...

This thread will never come to an end, there are too many points of view/opinions and there will never be sufficient evidence to prove one way or another.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Many scientist believe that for life, matter and whatever to exist there need to be something eternal out there. Out of all the searching they have done they still haven't found anything.
> 
> Solution: There is a god out there.


This is one of the biggest problems with creationists. 
You can't just use god to fill holes in knowledge. If you don't know something, then you admit that you don't know. Don't just make up something that "makes sense." Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it's true.


----------



## Cube Equation (Nov 22, 2011)

> Many scientist believe that for life, matter and whatever to exist there need to be something eternal out there. Out of all the searching they have done they still haven't found anything.
> 
> Solution: There is a god out there.


Why do these scientists believe that?


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Many scientist believe that for life, matter and whatever to exist there need to be something eternal out there. Out of all the searching they have done they still haven't found anything.
> 
> Solution: There is a god out there.


There was a time when lighting was not understood.

Solution: Zeus.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

the existence of a god(s) is very unlikely. Mainly because there is no need for a god(s). Humans, animals, the Earth, the universe, all of these things do not require a god(s). The reason I am an atheist is because I have no reason to believe that any religion (or religious text) is true, or simply that a god(s) exist.

If someone can prove to me that a god does exist, I'd be happy to acknowledge the gods presence. But so far, no one has been able to convince me.



CubeLTD said:


> The poll options are so funny.


 
Nobody told me how to change it.



Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> That is the only kind of evidence anyone can provide.


 None isn't very much...



Weston said:


> This is one of the biggest problems with creationists.
> You can't just use god to fill holes in knowledge. If you don't know something, then you admit that you don't know. Don't just make up something that "makes sense." Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it's true.


Yes.


----------



## Cube Equation (Nov 22, 2011)

> the existence of a god(s) is very unlikely. Mainly because there is no need for a god(s). Humans, animals, the Earth, the universe, all of these things do not require a god(s). The reason I am an atheist is because I have no reason to believe that any religion (or religious text) is true, or simply that a god(s) exist.



Not that I am a theist, but am you claiming that God does not exist simply because the universe does not require Him/Her for its existence? So merely because something is unnecessary, it does not exist. Personally, I don't think this is a logical argument against the existence of God.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> This is one of the biggest problems with creationists.
> You can't just use god to fill holes in knowledge. If you don't know something, then you admit that you don't know. Don't just make up something that "makes sense." Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it's true.



Can you please say some of these holes creationist face.



Cube Equation said:


> Why do these scientists believe that?


 
Isn't it just plain obvious that you can't create something out of nothing. A quote from Zane C from just the last place



Zane_C said:


> Not everything. There's still the question of how *all the matter got there in the first place*.



Many scientist on both sides of the argument say that it must of come from something that is eternal (doesn't have a start or an end)


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Can you please say some of these holes creationist face.


Um...
How about what we were talking about?
What created the universe?


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Can you please say some of these holes creationist face.


Lol.

Well, science has filled a lot of these holes that were once faced. 
As mentioned in my previous post, thunder was once one of these holes. The Greek god Zeus was created to 'fill this hole' of knowledge. 
We now know thanks to science, thunder is just a discharge of static electricity.
Nowadays, the holes creationists face relate to the beginning of the Universe and/or life.


hic0057 said:


> Many scientist on both sides of the argument say that it must of come from something that is eternal (doesn't have a start or an end)


There once wasn't a universe... and now there is. There's proof that you get something from nothing.


----------



## Cube Equation (Nov 22, 2011)

> Isn't it just plain obvious that you can't create something out of nothing. A quote from Zane C from just the last place



Please define obvious. We are dealing with creation here, an issue which is different from all other mundane events. Conventional logic does not necessarily apply. I may be a physicist (or one who is aspiring to becoming one), but I don't think the Conservation of Mass-Energy must apply in a singularity which many cosmologists claim to mark the beginning of existence as we know it.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

With everything above said, I think that in the future, especially when science proves religion wrong (i mean it gives proof of no god , but not completely) more and more people will become athiest for the lack of a need of a god. Like I think Zane said, gods and religion odten cover up for unknown knowledge. So as we learn more that gives more proof of no gods, there will be less need for them, making more atheists. 

This is just a possible prediction. Dont take this wrongly, as I find it quite realistic from my point of view. Of course i could be completely wrong...


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 22, 2011)

Zane_C said:


> There once wasn't a universe... and now there is. There's proof that you get something from nothing.


 There once was a time when Australia wasn't inhabited by humans... And now it is. Does that prove that Australians come from nothing. Maybe there is something outside of reality that we know it that created us



Cube Equation said:


> Please define obvious.


For science to be science it needs to be observed than explained. What I'm trying to say is that scientist can't/haven't observed nothing turning into something. I personally believe that is impossible for something to originate from nothing. That is mainly comman sense and plain logic.
Sorry for not directly answering your question though.



Weston said:


> Um...
> How about what we were talking about?
> What created the universe?



There was a post done by Emolover who doesn't believe in the big bang but instead in there being a creator. He doesn't believe directly in a god from what I understand. When I posted that question I meant why can't there be a god/creator and what are the flaws for it.

Creationist job is to defend the bible scientifically.(mainly stuff like a young earth and universe, a global flood and there being a creator)


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> There was a post done by Emolover who doesn't believe in the big bang but instead in there being a creator. He doesn't believe directly in a god from what I understand. When I posted that question I meant why can't there be a god/creator and what are the flaws for it.


I never said that there "can't" be a god. There's just no compelling evidence for it. You arbitrarily fill gaps in human knowledge with god and say "It's not impossible!" so you think your position is justified.
It isn't the least bit justified.


hic0057 said:


> Creationist job is to defend the bible scientifically.(mainly stuff like a young earth and universe, a global flood and there being a creator)


 No, your job is to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't believe it.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> With everything above said, I think that in the future, especially when science proves religion wrong (i mean it gives proof of no god , but not completely) more and more people will become athiest for the lack of a need of a god. Like I think Zane said, gods and religion odten cover up for unknown knowledge. So as we learn more that gives more proof of no gods, there will be less need for them, making more atheists.
> 
> This is just a possible prediction. Dont take this wrongly, as I find it quite realistic from my point of view. Of course i could be completely wrong...


 
Nah, it makes sense. Just look at how knowledge has progressed and grown through history. Our ancestors used the supernatural to explain things like thunder and lightning, sunrises, disease, earthquakes, and other natural phenomena. Over time, people came up with natural explanations through observation and scientific experimentation. Today, we have no need for a god of thunder to explain our weather. Grade schoolers are taught the structure of the solar system and how the earth moves in relation to the sun, and modern medicine makes possible what past generations would have called miracles.

Sure, there are plenty of things science can't explain yet, but is there any reason to think that this progression isn't going to continue? That at some point science is just going to give up and concede, "okay, a supernatural force is responsible for that one"? So far, this has never happened. Ever. That's just not the way it works.

I don't think science is actually going to "prove religion wrong". For that to happen, there has to be a falsifiable claim to be proven wrong, and religions aren't big on producing falsifiable claims. Besides, the burden of proof is not on scientists to prove that god doesn't exist. It's on those who claim that there is a god. What (I hope) happens is that as time goes on religion just becomes less important as it becomes less relevant not just for explaining natural phenomena, but also for dictating morality in our ever evolving society. Maybe humanity will eventually realize it doesn't need religion.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> No, your job is to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't believe it.


Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.

Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.



All this proves is that some of the stories in the Bible may have some basis in actual events, which we already know. It says nothing about the divinity or existence of a supernatural being and nothing about the questions we still have about how the universe/life began.



hic0057 said:


> Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.


 
Example?


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.
> 
> Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.


Jesus, are you drunk or something?
I'm going to try to reword what you said so that it makes sense. You can tell me if I got it right or wrong.



hic0057 said:


> Creation scientists have proven the Bible to be true using the global flood.
> 
> Also there have been many time throughout history when people have believed in something that they couldn't prove, but then were later proven to be right. Were those people right to believe what they thought to be true before it was proven to be correct?"


 
Just because a Biblical event has been shown to be an actual historical event doesn't mean that the Bible is true. Cats exist in Harry Potter and IRL, but that doesn't make Harry Potter true.

The number of times when people thought something was right, but then were later proved to be wrong massively outnumbers the number of times when people thought something was right, then were later proved to be right.
So you're basing your life on something that _might_ be discovered in the future if a huge chunk of science is wrong? 
What?


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> Maybe there is something outside of reality that we know it that created us


Maybe gravity is caused by sub-atomic pink fairies, yet is there a compelling reason to believe that? 
It seems reasonable to say that "maybe" isn't good enough to state something as fact. Not unless there is supporting evidence, which is why religion is faith, and why science has 'theories'. 

I need to go do something productive now.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> the historical parts of the bible claim to be written by eye witness writers.



Which parts? I don't see any such claims, and Luke and Paul (whoever they were) explicitly tell us that they were not on the scene of the crime, so to speak. In a way I agree with you though as I see very close to zero history and eye witness testimony in the Bible.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 22, 2011)

Weston said:


> Just because a Biblical event has been shown to be an actual historical event doesn't mean that the Bible is true. Cats exist in Harry Potter and IRL, but that doesn't make Harry Potter true.
> 
> The number of times when people thought something was right, but then were later proved to be wrong massively outnumbers the number of times when people thought something was right, then were later proved to be right.
> So you're basing your life on something that _might_ be discovered in the future if a huge chunk of science is wrong?
> What?


 
The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there. Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century. Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.

A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say. I highly respect people who go out think about what there being talked instead of being indoctrinated.

Maybe I'm basing my life on something that is wrong. Every time I've challenged the bible and being a Christian I've found a solution to it.

Also for examples for Shelly, the only ones I could think of on the spot is Galileo and Greek philosophers.

For the record, I don't have any degrees or whatever in this topic, I just find it really interesting. Look at some of the previous links that I've posted which argues from people who are highly qualified in this topic


----------



## irontwig (Nov 22, 2011)

Wait, so you think that there's actual scientific evidence for a global flood with a sea level of about 5000 m (height of mount Ararat) over the current one? Sure, we know that there were floods in the Middle East that might have been the basis of the different deluge myths in that region, but that does not mean that we have evidence that a guy built a boat to house 2 or 7 (btw how did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean?) of each animal during a ginormous global flood.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 22, 2011)

Looking at all "evidence" for god on the internet, God seems to be an alternative to saying "I don't know" for people who are to arrogant to admit they don't know everything.
How did the big bang happen? I don't know
how did the first living cell appear? I don't know
****ing magnets, how do they work? I don't know
But we'll find out.

Anyway. I have to feed my invisible, non-corporeal dragon that breaths invisible room temperature flames.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there.


 
1: Where did all the water go?
2: Where did all the water come from?
3: How did all the Saltwater fish survive in the freshwater flood?
4: Where has all this genetic diversity come from, in humans and the other animals alike? It's impossible that it could have come from one breeding pair of each species in less than 6000 years.
5: Why are there no signs of erosion on a scale that a worldwide flood would cause?

If you can't account for all of these glaring problems then you can't claim truth on this matter



hic0057 said:


> Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century.



Surely if the bible was inspired by an omnipotent and omnipresent god then every prophecy would have come true.



hic0057 said:


> Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.



Lol. Conspiracy theories now? Do you have any idea how many people would absolutely love the bible to be proved correct, and how many people have devoted their lives to trying to prove it?



hic0057 said:


> A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say.



Every 'long scientific word' has a meaning. They're long because each part of the word describes the phenomenon. They're not there to confuse you. Take the time to understand them and you'll discover that everything that you're being 'spoon fed' is real.


----------



## asportking (Nov 22, 2011)

Just to clear things up, some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally. God didn't really create the world in seven 24-hour periods, and Noah didn't take two of every single animal that existed and put them on a boat.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Which parts? I don't see any such claims, and Luke and Paul (whoever they were) explicitly tell us that they were not on the scene of the crime, so to speak. In a way I agree with you though as I see very close to zero history and eye witness testimony in the Bible.



Gospel of John for example... Also, the Exodus is in tradition written by Moses, and the mystery writer of this book has a very accurate knowledge of the geography of that area.

Ok, the historical parts of the Bible are based on eye witness accounts. either the writer saw the happenings, or wrote down what an eyewitness told him.



PatrickJameson said:


> Regardless, you haven't separated your religion/church's belief from other similar religions'/churches' beliefs. Do you know what I mean? The Koran, Torah, and most other religious writings have similar evidence to that which you describe above. What makes your religion/church's belief MORE believable than other religions and churches?


 
Quite simply because all other religions lack or err in something which God obviously wouldnt put in His religion.

Please show me a religion which is united as one. Like everybody believes the same core beliefs in that religion. Its not an "interpret what you want" thingy. 
Thats holy.. meaning the teachings of the religions are objectively holy. reading the catechism would be a good place to examine this. 
thats universal... a Church thats for everybody of every race and age and gender. essentially worldwide, not excluding anyone.

actually, we should first determine whether God exists or not, and define God, then the next step would be to figure out what religion He founded.

ok, so Patrick, whats the cause of your existence?

EDIT: I know lots of people believe that life began from apes, and all that stuff, but Im wondering, because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe continues to grow in randomness.. how did something so unrandom as life ever come to exist? I just thought of this and it doesnt seem to make sense to me.... :S cuz Im not saying that evolution etc. etc. isnt true, Im just trying to figure out how all these things happened which have such a small probability and seem to go against the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 22, 2011)

How do you know what parts not to take literally?
The parts we've proven wrong?
The parts we don't agree with?
The parts in leviticus condoning slavery, is there any way we can take that metaphorically?
Is Deuteronomy 22:28–29 to be taken literally?
How about we just ignore the whole bible and decide what is right or wrong, find out the truth, on our own?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Nov 22, 2011)

I have only read a few posts since I posted previously, but to give all (open-minded) *Christians* something to think about, watch this 3-part series on Youtube when you get a chance. It is primarily focused on astrology, but also mentions how the Bible borrowed literature from older works. If anyone who is Christian has the stomach to watch this all the way through and still chooses to follow Christianity strongly, then you at least can determine the reasons why you believe what you believe, and can now better share them with people of other beliefs in the future.














 
​


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> How do you know what parts not to take literally?
> The parts we've proven wrong?
> The parts we don't agree with?
> The parts in leviticus condoning slavery, is there any way we can take that metaphorically?
> ...



the parts that God's Church tells us to be taken literally. thats where Protestants and Catholics differ. 

Why would God leave us with just a book? The Bible is written by God, sure, I believe that, but Catholics believe thats only half the picture. Whats more important than the Bible is the Church he founded on St. Peter.

He interprets the Bible for us as well through His bride the Church.

oh my gosh, I just realized I voted for Chrisianity!!! hahaha!


----------



## drewsopchak (Nov 22, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Wait, so you think that there's actual scientific evidence for a global flood with a sea level of about 5000 m (height of mount Ararat) over the current one? Sure, we know that there were floods in the Middle East that might have been the basis of the different deluge myths in that region, but that does not mean that we have evidence that a guy built a boat to house 2 or 7 (btw how did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean?) of each animal during a ginormous global flood.


 lmao the flood is such odvious bull ****. To cover the tallest mountain tere would need to be 29 k feet. Look there's not enough vapor in the atmosphere for that to occur. By the way, the theory of gravity is only a theory.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

Okay, this thread seriously goes too fast for me to follow it all, but I'm gonna give my perspective on three of the major points that people have brought up:

1.The Biblical Flood:
-the flood story predates the Bible by hundreds of years. The first time we see this story is probably in The Epic of Gilgamesh (ancient Mesopotamian mythology). The story was changed from the original mesopotamian one to the Biblical account, with the characters changed, and again changed to include a monotheistic god (Mesopotamian believed in multiple gods). Now because the flood story was around and many different religions and non-religions wrote down an account of it, the possibility that there was an actual flood is very likely. Of course, the flood definitely did not cover the entire earth, and most likely only covered a large portion of land, and because at the time, the world was believed to be flat, and much smaller than we know it is today, the assumption that the whole world was flooded probably seemed very realistic. So that's my take on the flood story.
(I'll also mention that Mesopotamian mythology is one of the biggest precursors, and one of the biggest influences Judaism and Christianity take from -possibly Islam too, but I don't know enough about Islam-)

2.Historical accuracies in the Bible:
-The Bible does have some historical accuracies, there's no question about it. (locations, landmarks, some wars even) However, they are few, and none of the supernatural aspects (god, visions, miracles, etc.), nor the accounts of the life of Christ have any evidence for them. The Bible is not a history book, and it should not be treated as one.

3.The Beginning of the Universe:
-This one I think is kind of pointless to debate. The universe began, that much we know. How it happened we haven't figured out yet. "goddidit" is not an acceptible answer and "sciencprovesit" isn't either.



Lt-UnReaL said:


> Btw, AgentKuo: Chrisianity? :]


Yeah, I know, lol, I made a typo, but no one will tell me how to change the poll, so I had to leave it like that.


----------



## drewsopchak (Nov 22, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> How do you know what parts not to take literally?
> The parts we've proven wrong?
> The parts we don't agree with?
> The parts in leviticus condoning slavery, is there any way we can take that metaphorically?
> ...


 
Morality is inate. Clearly people who pick and choose and selectively read texts don't get morality from texts. Anyone who seriously represents their beliefs and says imoral things like condoms are worse than aids, the creator of the universe hates homosexuals, and apostates should be killed should be mistrusted.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> EDIT: I know lots of people believe that life began from apes, and all that stuff...



Nobody who paid any attention in Biology class believes that.



zmikecuber said:


> but Im wondering, because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe continues to grow in randomness.. how did something so unrandom as life ever come to exist? I just thought of this and it doesnt seem to make sense to me....



HAHAHAHA, I love it when creationists bring out the second law of thermodynamics. I'd be very surprised if 'you just though of it' cause people have been misusing the 2nd law for decades in these situations. Write out the whole law here, reread it carefully and see if you can see where you went wrong quoting it. (hint: most creationists tend to miss out a key part cause it doesn't sit well with their argument)
EDIT: a f*x it, I don't have time to wait for the reply - here is where you went wrong.. you need to define the system... if you define it to be the universe then the overall entropy is definitely increasing, miniscule flucuations such as on the earth are well within statistical probability.. if you define it as just the earth (as most creationists do) then you're failing to take into account the sun which is key component of life on earth. If you include the whole solar system then the entroy in the sun more than covers the earth. (If you don't understand any of that then you shouldn't have quoted the 2nd law in the first place). Also unrandomness in life a weird quote, unnatural selection (like in crops and dogs) and natural selection (pretty much everything else) aren't random.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

drewsopchak said:


> lmao the flood is such odvious bull ****. To cover the tallest mountain tere would need to be 29 k feet. Look there's not enough vapor in the atmosphere for that to occur. By the way, the theory of gravity is only a theory.



interestingly enough, other ancient historians of different religions have also recorded a massive flood, and have had a similar story of Noah.

Ok, so let's assume for the sake of the following argument that God exists.

So everybody has sinned? I mean its pretty obvious, we're all pretty screwed. We all stink.

On our own as insignificant specks in the universe, we can do nothing to atone for our sins. Man has been offering sacrifice to God for this reason since the beginning of sin. Every since love has existed, theres also been a lack of it in people's hearts, which is why people sin. (please note, Im not talking about the hippie love emotion bob smith)

So if God exists, and He's perfect, we seem to be on pretty freaking bad terms with Him.

And the fact is that we cant fix this ourselves. That's why it makes sense that God would come Himself, as a Man, and redeem us.

Islam doesnt have this. Asian religions dont. Christianity is the only religion which has the redeeming quality to atone for the massive sins of mankind. 

Christianity is really a very epic religion. Believing that God Himself came down as a Man in order to die for the very Men who have wounded him. As opposed to atheism... which is quite boring actually. Cuz believing everything is a big mistake... especially us... talk about depressing! heh heh 

Sooo yeah. But this all hinges on whether God exists. That's the million dollar question. 



Godmil said:


> HAHAHAHA, I love it when creationists bring out the second law of thermodynamics. I'd be very surprised if 'you just though of it' cause people have been misusing the 2nd law for decades in these situations. Write out the whole law here, reread it carefully and see if you can see where you went wrong quoting it. (hint: most creationists tend to miss out a key part cause it doesn't sit well with their argument)



actually Ive never considered myself to be a "creationist". lol.  maybe I sound like one but yeah. I believe theres an ultimate Cause to the universe, which put it into existence. I believe in the big bang... *nods*

from wikipedia: 
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.

maybe Im incredibly stupid (actually thats most likely) but can you explain what you mean?

and yes, I did just think of it.  soo you can go ahead and be surprised. heh heh 

I'll end this with a joke... Philosophy is dead. Idk if anybody is going to get that... but yeah. lol.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 22, 2011)

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> actually Ive never considered myself to be a "creationist". lol.



That's cool, I was meaning though it is a staple (but long since debunked) argument that creationists use. 
(oh and I editted my post above to include the reason why the 2nd law is never violated)


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

ok yeah, so if I were God, I would use the theory of evolution to get the universe started. I mean really proving how something scientifically works doesnt disprove the existence of God.

Same with Zeus. nobody believes Zeus throws lightning bolts because we know scientifically what lightning is! but really, thats a bad proof! If I were Zeus, I would use science to throw lightning!

a better proof is showing that Zeus is an incredibly fallible and human person, and is therefore not "God". 

Lastly, heres an interesting thing. When I say the word "table" you simply apprehend the concept of table..

God simply apprehends everything. its an interesting concept, and people start talking about God as a person too much. and while he is a BEING, hes not a person in the way that we simply apprehend "person".

EDIT: ok, I get your point about the sun. makes sense. but it really doesnt disprove the existence of an ultimate Cause to the universe. we should all read Thomas Aquinas!!!  xD


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> So everybody has sinned? I mean its pretty obvious, we're all pretty screwed. We all stink.
> 
> On our own as insignificant specks in the universe, we can do nothing to atone for our sins. Man has been offering sacrifice to God for this reason since the beginning of sin. Every since love has existed, theres also been a lack of it in people's hearts, which is why people sin. (please note, Im not talking about the hippie love emotion bob smith)
> 
> ...


 
The whole concept of everyone having sinned and needing redeemed... and the only way to redeem yourself is by....
is a common trope in systems that try to control people. You see the exact same thing in Scientology... people are born with thetans... the only way to remove the thetans is with auditing...
The whole idea was just created to compel people to stay in the system. It's actually quite a malitious concept.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Nov 22, 2011)

So God doesn't make mistakes? I say he made a pretty big one when creating us.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ok yeah, so if I were God, I would use the theory of evolution to get the universe started.


 
...how?


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> So God doesn't make mistakes? I say he made a pretty big one when creating us.



in what way?



Godmil said:


> The whole concept of everyone having sinned and needing redeemed... and the only way to redeem yourself is by....
> is a common trope in systems that try to control people. You see the exact same thing in Scientology... people are born with thetans... the only way to remove the thetans is with auditing...
> The whole idea was just created to compel people to stay in the system. It's actually quite a malitious concept.



are you saying that we dont sin? if so, you should prove that.  Im saying IF God exists, then its impossible for us to do anything to redeem ourselves without His help. its actually part of our human nature. you mess up, you seek redemption.



Kirjava said:


> ...how?



well if I was all knowing and all powerful, I would be able to answer that question. 

ok, so I wrote that long winded post in repsonse to Patrick who wanted me to prove that my religion was "more correct" than others, assuming that God existed. and Im saying because other religions do not have the redemption of Christianity.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> interestingly enough, other ancient historians of different religions have also recorded a massive flood, and have had a similar story of Noah.


 
Give me a break. Vampires have been in plenty different books, but that doesn't mean they're real.



zmikecuber said:


> So everybody has sinned? I mean its pretty obvious, we're all pretty screwed. We all stink.



By who's criteria? Does god just make these 'sins' up? Could he declare tomorrow that murdering everyone you see is the fastest way to salvation? Would that make murder not a 'sin' anymore?



zmikecuber said:


> So if God exists, and He's perfect, we seem to be on pretty freaking bad terms with Him.



If he's perfect then it follows that he is perfectly forgiving. Then he could forgive us all, problem solved. Bearing a grudge is surely a bad trait.



zmikecuber said:


> And the fact is that we cant fix this ourselves. That's why it makes sense that God would come Himself, as a Man, and redeem us.



So he came down to earth to exploit a loophole in his 'perfect' plan. Sounds like a pretty dumb god to me. But of course! He planned this all from the start! Wait, what?



zmikecuber said:


> Islam doesnt have this. Asian religions dont. Christianity is the only religion which has the redeeming quality to atone for the massive sins of mankind.



Again with the sins. God is apparently getting mad at his creation for breaking rules that he created. Your god is either stupid or incredibly evil.



zmikecuber said:


> Christianity is really a very epic religion. Believing that God Himself came down as a Man in order to die for the very Men who have wounded him. As opposed to atheism... which is quite boring actually. Cuz believing everything is a big mistake... especially us... talk about depressing! heh heh



So what? Michael Bay films are loud and epic. Doesn't make them good. Choosing your world view on what is most entertaining is pretty stupid. Also, happening by chance =/= mistake.


As for the 2nd law of Thermodynamics; life is no obstacle for this. The 2nd law works on a strictly macro scale. In terms of the universe the sun will obliterate us in a couple of billion years and spread our atoms amongst the cosmos. Is that disordered enough for you?





zmikecuber said:


> ok yeah, so if I were God, I would use the theory of evolution to get the universe started. I mean really proving how something scientifically works doesnt disprove the existence of God.


 
I agree with Kir. How? Maybe you should learn what you're talking about before trying to.




zmikecuber said:


> Same with Zeus. nobody believes Zeus throws lightning bolts because we know scientifically what lightning is! but really, thats a bad proof! If I were Zeus, I would use science to throw lightning!



You speak like science is a thing. You mean nature...


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ... it really doesnt disprove the existence of an ultimate Cause to the universe. we should all read Thomas Aquinas!!!  xD



The first cause argument has long been demolished: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=First_cause


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> in what way?


 
Killing each other
war
pollution
etc.

If he didn't make mistakes, we either would only do good, or more likely create something other than humans.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> well if I was all knowing and all powerful, I would be able to answer that question.


 
You don't seem to know what evolution is.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Again with the sins. God is apparently getting mad at his creation for breaking rules that he created. Your god is either stupid or incredibly evil.



you have a flawed definition of God. God isnt a person in the way we understand a person to be. He didnt create rules. He IS the rules, and we have gone against his essence. 



Muesli said:


> If he's perfect then it follows that he is perfectly forgiving. Then he could forgive us all, problem solved. Bearing a grudge is surely a bad trait.



He is all forgiving. He forgives people who want to be forgiven. He doesnt punish anyone. People in hell are there because they want to be in hell, because they hate him. We also have a very flawed view of hell... hell isnt the flames its made out to be. Its just a place were God does not come into. 



Muesli said:


> So what? Michael Bay films are loud and epic. Doesn't make them good. Choosing your world view on what is most entertaining is pretty stupid. Also, happening by chance =/= mistake.



I dont choose my views on whats most entertaining.  I was just making a point that atheism is quite boring in reality. I dont know why anybody would hope that atheism is true...



Muesli said:


> By who's criteria? Does god just make these 'sins' up? Could he declare tomorrow that murdering everyone you see is the fastest way to salvation? Would that make murder not a 'sin' anymore?



Once again, you have a flawed view of sin. God never orders something evil, because that is self contradictory. God cant sin against Himself because thats a contradiction. 



collinbxyz said:


> Killing each other
> war
> pollution
> etc.
> ...


 
thats a quite common mistake. Sin and evil is the absence of God. Like darkness. Darkness doesnt exist. Its just the absence of light. Yet it takes a form. Same with evil.

gee I hope I dont sound snooty... I hate snooty people!! hehe


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> gee I hope I dont sound snooty... I hate snooty people!! hehe


 
You're defending a philosophically bankrupt viewpoint against a large number of people who are better informed than you. If you hated snooty people you should have abandoned this thread long ago.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> He is all forgiving. He forgives people who want to be forgiven. He doesnt punish anyone. People in hell are there because they want to be in hell, because they hate him. We also have a very flawed view of hell... hell isnt the flames its made out to be. Its just a place were God does not come into.



I don't hate 'him', I simply don't believe 'him'. You just said he doesn't punish anyone, than said anyone who hates him goes to hell. So he does punish those that hate him?
...





zmikecuber said:


> I dont choose my views on whats most entertaining.  I was just making a point that atheism is quite boring in reality. I dont know why anybody would hope that atheism is true...


Maybe we're atheist because we don't want to do so much in life for something that we don't believe exists? I find church boring. And yes, I have been there with my Catholic Grandfather before.[/QUOTE]


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> You're defending a philosophically bankrupt viewpoint against a large number of people who are better informed than you. If you hated snooty people you should have abandoned this thread long ago.


 
wait are you saying that you guys are snooty? 

Philosophy is dead.



collinbxyz said:


> I don't hate 'him', I simply don't believe 'him'. You just said he doesn't punish anyone, than said anyone who hates him goes to hell. So he does punish those that hate him?
> ...
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

First, no God doesnt punish the people in hell. Theyre there punishing themselves. Hell is complete and utter solitude for all eternity with yourself, knowing that you are the only one to blame for your actions, yet never admitting that to yourself.

oh and many people find Catholicism and Church in general boring because they dont understand it. when we try to make Church "fun" thats when it gets boring. Believing that you are in the presence of God aint boring.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

There is nothing that you can possibly say that will change the opinion of any of the atheists here. I'm not sure how many people keep this thread alive out of a genuine interest in debating you, and how many just find your logic, or lack thereof, highly amusing at this point.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> There is nothing that you can possibly say that will change the opinion of any of the atheists here. I'm not sure how many people keep this thread alive out of a genuine interest in debating you, and how many just find your logic, or lack thereof, highly amusing at this point.



ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 22, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there.


 


Is this a joke or what you really believe? I need to know so I can decide whether I have to laugh at or with you


----------



## Muesli (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> you have a flawed definition of God. God isnt a person in the way we understand a person to be. He didnt create rules. He IS the rules, and we have gone against his essence.



So he's intrinsically good? Have you read the old testament?



zmikecuber said:


> He is all forgiving. He forgives people who want to be forgiven. He doesnt punish anyone. People in hell are there because they want to be in hell, because they hate him. We also have a very flawed view of hell... hell isnt the flames its made out to be. Its just a place were God does not come into.



I don't want to go to hell, yet he will send me there because I can't believe in him. I also don't hate god, because I don't believe in him. I can't hate something I don't believe exists.



zmikecuber said:


> I dont choose my views on whats most entertaining.  I was just making a point that atheism is quite boring in reality. I dont know why anybody would hope that atheism is true...



There's no hoping. It's true until you can prove otherwise, which you haven't and can't until you can demonstrate any gods.



zmikecuber said:


> Once again, you have a flawed view of sin. God never orders something evil, because that is self contradictory. God cant sin against Himself because thats a contradiction.



Again, have you read the old testament? Hundreds upon hundreds are people are killed in god's name and by god himself. Read the entire book, not just the bits you like.




zmikecuber said:


> thats a quite common mistake. Sin and evil is the absence of God. Like darkness. Darkness doesnt exist. Its just the absence of light. Yet it takes a form. Same with evil.



This all just seems to be wishful thinking. Prove god exists and that sentence would become more than fiction.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> Is this a joke or what you really believe? I need to know so I can decide whether I have to laugh at or with you


 
Don't worry Kirjava isn't that stupid... but he is that sarcastic


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 22, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> There is nothing that you can possibly say that will change the opinion of any of the atheists here. I'm not sure how many people keep this thread alive out of a genuine interest in debating you, and how many just find your logic, or lack thereof, highly amusing at this point.


 
I think you can convert most atheists by giving good, unambiguous, REAL evidence for the existence of god. 
I mean. Name any recent (recent as in the time the oldest person on earth has been alive) miracle that can't also be explained by dumb luck or a skilled human being (like the "miracle" on the Hudson can be explained by a skilled pilot)


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?



No, we'd be completely open to you saying something that you could back up with a rational argument.



Godmil said:


> Don't worry Kirjava isn't that stupid... but he is that sarcastic


 
Rule 1 of this site: do not take anything Kir says at face value.


----------



## stoic (Nov 22, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there.


 
Dawkins does a pretty decent job of explaining exactly how rainbows occur in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow".

It's a good read, and his central theme is well put-together. (Basically: that explaining how a world without a god works through science - rather than religion and dogma - can increase the beauty of life rather than diminish it)


Edit: doh. I just broke Rule 1


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 22, 2011)

Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Ok, Im done...for now.


----------



## chrissyD (Nov 22, 2011)

I base my beliefs on evidence and not on what a story book tells me. There is absolutely no evidence of god so to me he does not exist. If people want to spend their lives believing in complete crap then it doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother them if I don't believe in a made up character.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm truly baffled by the fact that Nihilism is lumped together with Atheism, not believing in a magic wizard man who knows everything has nothing to do with thinking life is trite and pointless. 

The bible is not infallible. I dislike how many "devout" believers think they get to decide which parts of the Bible god wrote, which parts are metaphorical, and which parts can be disregarded entirely. If you believe in the Old Testament and the Bible then you better not shave your face, cut the hair around your temples, touch a pig's skin, work on the sabbath, knowingly allow a homosexual to live or allow women to be in public on their period. Also, you should be able to own slaves from neighboring countries, sell your daughter into slavery, murder homosexuals, those who commit adultery, those who don't observe the sabbath and those who use the lord's name in vain etc. Furthermore you can rape any virgin and have yourself a wife that must obey your word til death. Awesome god is awesome.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
> 
> ...


 
This argument deserves no response besides condescending laughter. First cause is literally the easiest of your "proofs" to debunk. I'll leave the demonstration to one of the other gentlemen of leisure who is frequenting this thread, as they are no doubt better versed in philosophical debate than I am.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 22, 2011)

Let me reiterate: A lot of people are saying the same things I already said. It's a bit redundant.


AgentKuo said:


> Okay, this thread seriously goes too fast for me to follow it all, but I'm gonna give my perspective on three of the major points that people have brought up:
> 
> 1.The Biblical Flood:
> -the flood story predates the Bible by hundreds of years. The first time we see this story is probably in The Epic of Gilgamesh (ancient Mesopotamian mythology). The story was changed from the original mesopotamian one to the Biblical account, with the characters changed, and again changed to include a monotheistic god (Mesopotamian believed in multiple gods). Now because the flood story was around and many different religions and non-religions wrote down an account of it, the possibility that there was an actual flood is very likely. Of course, the flood definitely did not cover the entire earth, and most likely only covered a large portion of land, and because at the time, the world was believed to be flat, and much smaller than we know it is today, the assumption that the whole world was flooded probably seemed very realistic. So that's my take on the flood story.
> ...





zmikecuber said:


> Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
> 
> The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.


But who's to say that everything does have significant meaning. I certainly don't believe that.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

hic0057 said:


> The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there. Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century. Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.



This is no way to carry on a debate. Without actual examples you're just arguing out of your ass. If you're trying to show the Bible is true, why insist there are things we're not supposed to know about?

Even so, the original argument still stands. Just because one part of the Bible is based on a true event doesn't mean the entire thing is true. And when prophecies are so vaguely written that they can be twisted to fit any event, that's not a prophecy.



hic0057 said:


> A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say. I highly respect people who go out think about what there being talked instead of being indoctrinated.



I hope you see the irony here. The difference is that you can study science and use experiments, observation and scientific reasoning to verify this information for yourself. When people "use long scientific words" to spread misinformation, they can be disproved and discredited. In fact, this is why it is important to be educated and informed about science. This is why creationists' insistence that "alternative theories" need to be taught in science classes in the US is a terrible idea, and it says something about our society when politicians are listening to them.

On the other hand, when people stop taking what their pastor says at face value, start really studying the Bible and looking at religion with a critical eye, what happens?



hic0057 said:


> Also for examples for Shelly, the only ones I could think of on the spot is Galileo and Greek philosophers.



Really? _Galileo_? Galileo was a scientist. He didn't just one day decide to believe the earth revolved around the sun without any justification. He could prove his beliefs, which arose from observation, were correct. The religious authorities who insisted he was wrong were the ones that persisted in an incorrect belief (that the sun revolved around the earth), could not prove it, and were eventually shown to be wrong.



zmikecuber said:


> ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?



What's your religion? When you think about why you subscribe to the beliefs of one religion but not any of the others, that seems pretty narrow minded too. You probably didn't even look into all of them in depth before rejecting them.

As an atheist, I don't see my attitude as narrow minded. In fact, I'm quite open to your ideas as long as they can be defended with reason and/or evidence. If I saw irrefutable evidence that an invisible pink unicorn existed, I would admit I was wrong and change my beliefs in an instant. I just have yet to see that evidence, so I have no reason to believe, any more than I have reason to believe in the Easter Bunny or fairies.

Being open minded doesn't mean you have to take every nonsensical and half baked idea you encounter seriously. As they say, if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.


----------



## asportking (Nov 22, 2011)

Arguing about whether God exists or not is pointless. You can't prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist, and neither can you (at least without a miracle) prove that God does exist. The way I see it, even if religion is false, it doesn't make it a BAD thing. Religion can give people morals and ethics on how to be better people. Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

asportking said:


> Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?


 
The problem is when stuff like this happens:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...d_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_israeli_conflict

and many other things.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 22, 2011)

asportking said:


> Arguing about whether God exists or not is pointless.


 
No, it's not. Religious belief underpins many politicians legislature and the choices they make in office. If it can be shown that there is no reason to assume a god exists we will have a more rational society and one less prone to making choices based on the voices in their head.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

asportking said:


> Religion can give people morals and ethics on how to be better people. Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?


 
It also gives them justification to be less than good. Killing people in the name of an imaginary god may be an "odd" tradition, but it's nothing to say "so what?" over.


----------



## asportking (Nov 22, 2011)

shelley said:


> It also gives them justification to be less than good. Killing people in the name of an imaginary god may be an "odd" tradition, but it's nothing to say "so what?" over.


So you're saying every religious person believes killing is justified? That's a rediculously small percentage of people; you can't possibly say that religion is bad because of that.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> First cause is literally the easiest of your "proofs" to debunk. I'll leave the demonstration to one of the other gentlemen of leisure who is frequenting this thread



It makes it to paragraph 4 before demonstrating it's first logical fallacy: the false dicotemy. 'either there is no first cause or god is the first cause'. It doesn't take into account that the big bang itself could be the first cause, it ignores the fact that if a major premise is that everything must have a cause then God must have a cause (otherwise you have special pleading). Also it assumes if there is a supernatural first cause then it must be the Judeo-Christian god (while if you follow this argument there is no reason why it shouldn't be Chronos, Odin, etc.)... You're right First Cause is a really easy one, I bearly mentioned half of the known logical problems with it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Quite simply because all other religions lack or err in something which God obviously wouldnt put in His religion.



You might be right. I heard of a passage in a religious book(maybe the Koran) where some children were making fun of a bald man. The bald man cursed them in the name of his lord and right after, two bears came out and tore the children apart. What do you think of that passage?


----------



## Bryan (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> You might be right. I heard of a passage in a religious book(maybe the Koran) where some children were making fun of a bald man. The bald man cursed them in the name of his lord and right after, two bears came out and tore the children apart. What do you think of that passage?


 
Well, I deleted my post because it was posted above, but that's gone now. But it's from 2 Kings 2:23-25.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

Bryan said:


> Well, I deleted my post because it was posted above, but that's gone now. But it's from 2 Kings 2:23-25.
> 
> View attachment 1853


 
Haha, you ruined my fun. I knew where it was from, I just wanted to see what he thought of the passage without him knowing it was straight out of the bible.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

asportking said:


> So you're saying every religious person believes killing is justified?



No, I did not say that at all. That wasn't even anywhere close to my point.



asportking said:


> you can't possibly say that religion is bad because of that.


 
The fact that it happens at all, even once, is deplorable. And it has happened more than once. It continues happening in the 21st century, when we should know better. So yes, religion is bad because of that. Not because it makes every believer a killer, but because it can be twisted to justify very terrible things.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 22, 2011)

shelley said:


> The fact that it happens at all, even once, is deplorable. And it has happened more than once. It continues happening in the 21st century, when we should know better. So yes, religion is bad because of that. Not because it makes every believer a killer, but because it can be twisted to justify very terrible things.



So what if someone killed someone, and then became a Christian and said, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have killed." Wouldn't that mean that atheism kills and it's deplorable?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 22, 2011)

Bryan said:


> So what if someone killed someone, and then became a Christian and said, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have killed." Wouldn't that mean that atheism kills and it's deplorable?


 
The lack of belief in a god does not in it self promote killing people while some interpretations of religious texts may conclude that some gods want you to kill people for various reasons.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 22, 2011)

Bryan said:


> So what if someone killed someone, and then became a Christian and said, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have killed." Wouldn't that mean that atheism kills and it's deplorable?


 
As far as I don' t know there is no atheist manifesto telling you to kill people who don't agree with you. While most if not all religious text do say that


----------



## Bryan (Nov 22, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> The lack of belief in a god does not in it self promote killing people while some interpretations of religious texts may conclude that some gods want you to kill people for various reasons.


 
Huh? I didn't say atheism promotes killing, but the fact that it doesn't discourage it could in fact lead to a situation I describe above. If in a non-religious context, if someone says, "We should just kill these people because we don't like them and they are worthless." What in atheism is preventing them from killing? If they believed in the Bible and said, "Well, we don't like them, but we're instructed not to kill and they are also made in the image of God, so we shouldn't kill."

Yes, I know it's kind of an extreme example, but I'm just making the point that if the argument that being atheist isn't automatically instilling things like "not killing" just like Christianity isn't instilling "killing".


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

If atheism is simply a lack of religious belief, of course it doesn't instill anything. Secular morals are perfectly capable of keeping people from killing each other in a non-religious society. I never said being atheist automatically makes you a non-murderer, just that religion can be used to justify murder.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 22, 2011)

What could prevent them is simply conscience. Every human will just know it's morally wrong.
They could think "we are all human beings therefore I shouldn't kill them as it's not morally right"


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 22, 2011)

5BLD said:


> What could prevent them is simply conscience. Every human will just know it's morally wrong.
> They could think "we are all human beings therefore I shouldn't kill them as it's not morally right"


 
What's your basis for that morality? Yourself?


----------



## Bryan (Nov 22, 2011)

shelley said:


> I never said being atheist automatically makes you a non-murderer, just that religion can be used to justify murder.


 
I never said you did. I just asked if you were going to paint religion as bad because it was used for justification of killing, would you be willing to paint atheism the same way if it was shown that not being atheist would have prevented it?


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 22, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> What's your basis for that morality? Yourself?


 
Yes. What you believe from yourself will have much more of an impact than beliefs from outside- you may start to question beliefs from outside but you know what is right in yourself... IMO. If I said that right.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 22, 2011)

Everyone is arguing around the point. Fact is there is no reason for anyone with a secular or religious viewpoint to have 'better' morals than another. However, it has been shown that people who believe they have a moral superiority are more likely to act outside of that framework if they think the ends justify the means. Ponder that and see if it fits the way people behave.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2011)

Bryan said:


> I never said you did. I just asked if you were going to paint religion as bad because it was used for justification of killing, would you be willing to paint atheism the same way if it was shown that not being atheist would have prevented it?


 
Atheism doesn't tell you to kill the same way religion would.

Not being at the scene of the murder would also have prevented the murder. That doesn't mean simply being at the scene of the murder could be used as justification for killing.


----------



## Divineskulls (Nov 22, 2011)

Religion isn't the only thing that provides morals. Everytime something happens to you, you learn from it, and depending on what you learn, your morals are affected positively or negatively.

Edit: Quadruple ninja'd? O.O


----------



## Bryan (Nov 22, 2011)

shelley said:


> Atheism doesn't tell you to kill the same way religion would.


 
Or wouldn't, if you believe the 10 commandments. But I'm not saying it's in the same way, I'm simply asking if the end result (a killing occurs) would justify the same condemnation of the set of beliefs (whether it's Christianity or atheism*). The answer is either yes or no.

*- And before someone goes "Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's no beliefs". That person has a set of beliefs, they just don't have beliefs about God (or it's the belief that God doesn't exist).


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 22, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Yes. What you believe from yourself will have much more of an impact than beliefs from outside- you may start to question beliefs from outside but you know what is right in yourself... IMO. If I said that right.


 
So we can all have different morals according to that, right? Or does everybody believe the same things from themselves?


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

Bryan said:


> *- And before someone goes "Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's no beliefs". That person has a set of beliefs, they just don't have beliefs about God (or it's the belief that God doesn't exist).


 
To me, atheism in general is just rejecting belief in any god, and then to be more specific there are all these *philosophies *that can tie in with being an atheist.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm actually surprised no one said cubing was their religion.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> I'm actually surprised no one said cubing was their religion.


 
I might make this my sig =D


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 22, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> I'm actually surprised no one said cubing was their religion.


 
Cube theory wasn't in the poll unfortunately.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 22, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> So we can all have different morals according to that, right? Or does everybody believe the same things from themselves?


 
'different morals', if you mean different to others, is practically the same as 'everyone believes the same things from themselves'. Unless you mean literally each person has the same beliefs, by that, I didnt mean that.

Everyone has a set of beliefs probably unique to themself and that will influence the way they think or react to new ideas for example.
Also that means that each person will have a kind of different sense over morality.
However naturally some things are just morally wrong like killing others. In general.
Either way if they do think it's morally/ not morally right, it won't make as much a difference therefore if you are religious or not.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> I'm actually surprised no one said cubing was their religion.



We don't pray (well, maybe most of us) to David Singmaster or anyone like that...


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 22, 2011)

i voted for "Chrisianity."

one of my beliefs was that there were 2 t's in that word.

i guess i was wrong.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

Hershey said:


> We don't pray (well, maybe most of us) to David Singmaster or anyone like that...


 
Ya, I mean, I don't have a gold encrusted statue of Feliks or anything... And it's not like I worship him every day, morning, and night... hehe


----------



## SpeedSolve (Nov 22, 2011)

mDiPalma said:


> i voted for "Chrisianity."
> 
> one of my beliefs was that there were 2 t's in that word.
> 
> i guess i was wrong.


 
Lol.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Nov 22, 2011)

Hershey said:


> We don't pray (well, maybe most of us) to David Singmaster or anyone like that...


 
Religion doesn't mean you have to pray to anything. 


Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (dictionary.com)


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> Religion doesn't mean you have to pray to anything.
> 
> 
> Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (dictionary.com)



Meh.

anyway, I am surprised no one asked who David Singmaster is.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 22, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Meh.
> 
> anyway, I am surprised no one asked who David Singmaster is.


 Thats because we all know who he is.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 22, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Thats because we all know who he is.


 
 He is too mainstream?


----------



## Escher (Nov 22, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Meh.
> 
> anyway, I am surprised no one asked who David Singmaster is.


 
That's like Catholics not knowing who the Pope is.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 22, 2011)

Escher said:


> That's like Catholics not knowing who the Pope is.


 
I bet a lot of them don't.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 22, 2011)

5BLD said:


> However naturally some things are just morally wrong like killing others. In general.


 
Says who?


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 22, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Thats because we all know who he is.


 
I had to google.


----------



## Weston (Nov 22, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Says who?


 Evolution.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 23, 2011)

Weston said:


> Evolution.


 
Natural Selection: Kill the weak.


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 23, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Natural Selection: Kill the weak.


 
Win.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 23, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> Seconded, but I didn't have the audacity to just come out and say it like that.



Lol ok. I hate religion.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 23, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Natural Selection: Kill the weak.


 
It's simple. We kill all non-cubers. Starting with those who have, at any point, made reference to taking the stickers off.


----------



## Hovair (Nov 23, 2011)

atheist. but my friends at school get "offended" so i say im catholic since thats what the rest of my family is. i hate discussing about religion and politics and all that other crap. why am I answering because I want to answer on my thoughts.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 23, 2011)

Hovair said:


> but my friends at school get "offended" so i say im catholic since thats what the rest of my family is.


 
What?!!!!!!!!! That's like saying people get offended when you say you are a boy, its just who you are. You can't keep lying to yourself.

(Reminds me of X-Men and gay rights and all those things.)


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 23, 2011)

Hovair said:


> atheist. but my friends at school get "offended" so i say im catholic since thats what the rest of my family is. i hate discussing about religion and politics and all that other crap. why am I answering because I want to answer on my thoughts.


 
If that offends them, they don't deserve to be your friends.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 23, 2011)

Hershey said:


> What?!!!!!!!!! That's like saying people get offended when you say you are a boy, its just who you are. You can't keep lying to yourself.
> 
> (Reminds me of X-Men and gay rights and all those things.)


 
Or racism.

I feel that we should find another topic to talk about. Ideas?


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 23, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> Or racism.
> 
> I feel that we should find another topic to talk about. Ideas?



So. What's your favorite kind of cheese.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> So. What's your favorite kind of cheese.


 
I'd have to say mozzarella or provolone, maybe pepper jack.


----------



## cheatmasterbw (Nov 23, 2011)

Just a quick question for the atheists here:

Do you say "Bless You" when someone sneezes, or do people say it to you ever?


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

^I always wondered about stuff like that. Basically stuff we normally don't think about.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

Sorry for double posting but since we're on this sort of subject I may as well ask.

This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?

This happened last year and the person kind of made a scene out of it.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 23, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> traditional prayer


 
Like what?


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Like what?


 Just a prayer for safety and for the usual help us do our best.
There are many people who don't follow a religion that participate who but the one person made me wonder about other opinions.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 23, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> So. What's your favorite kind of cheese.


 
I seriously hate cheese... 



cheatmasterbw said:


> Just a quick question for the atheists here:
> 
> Do you say "Bless You" when someone sneezes, or do people say it to you ever?


 
I try to avoid it, but I dont find it much of a religous thing any more. So usually not.



ZamHalen said:


> Sorry for double posting but since we're on this sort of subject I may as well ask.
> 
> This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?
> 
> This happened last year and the person kind of made a scene out of it.



I hate being in these situations. It pretty much happens every Thanksgiving... So two days. Since my grandparents and cousins there are Catholic, they say a prayer. I try to respect them and do what they do physically (hold hands while my grandpa says everything, usually).


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I hate being in these situations. It pretty much happens every Thanksgiving... So two days. Since my grandparents and cousins there are Catholic, they say a prayer. I try to respect them and do what they do physically (hold hands while my grandpa says everything, usually).


 
So you kind of "participate" as more of a traditional thing?Because that's what I've wondered.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 23, 2011)

Pretty much.


----------



## ianography (Nov 23, 2011)

Hovair said:


> atheist. but my friends at school get "offended" so i say im catholic since thats what the rest of my family is. i hate discussing about religion and politics and all that other crap. why am I answering because I want to answer on my thoughts.


 
It's the South, it's like that everywhere.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 23, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?
> 
> This happened last year and the person kind of made a scene out of it.


 Any other opinions on this I'd like to see a couple of perspectives.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 23, 2011)

My parents are Hindu, but for some reason they do the prayer thing for Thanksgiving. However, this year I am probably going to (politely) interrupt and thank farmers for the food we eat, scientists for pushing the human race forward, and soldiers who protect our country...


----------



## Nestor (Nov 23, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?
> 
> This happened last year and the person kind of made a scene out of it.


 
I participate in religious ceremonies in order to be culturally fit. I don't hide my atheism and I simply bow my head and keep quiet while everyone prays. I respect other people's traditions and faith (I still think they are bs for the most part, but I would never deny their right to be stupidly mistaken).


----------



## emolover (Nov 23, 2011)

cheatmasterbw said:


> Just a quick question for the atheists here:
> 
> Do you say "Bless You" when someone sneezes, or do people say it to you ever?


 
I don't say it. If anything I say excuse you then people look at me funny and I tell them to suck my ****.

I don't mind if people say bless you, but when they say it more then once that pisses the **** out of me. If someone is having an episode than I doubt they want to here "bless you" 20 freaking times.

I also hate how people say it just to talk(especially during tests). No offense but I hate the way girls and nice guys say it. The way they say it makes me so made because they say it like there a ****ing saint. I just want to yell, " Stop getting it off from saying 'bless you'!!!". It pisses me off.


----------



## EVH (Nov 23, 2011)

I am a Christian though, and although you can try and deny that God doesn't exist, you cannot deny the things he has done in me. BTW I find the picture hilarious.


----------



## Weston (Nov 23, 2011)

EVH said:


> I am a Christian though, and although you can try and deny that God doesn't exist, you cannot deny the things he has done in me. BTW I find the picture hilarious.


To give god credit is to take away credit from someone else that deserves it. My parents like to do this to me. They like to attribute my personal accomplishments to their prayer.


----------



## ianography (Nov 23, 2011)

emolover said:


> I don't say it. If anything I say excuse you then people look at me funny and I tell them to suck my ****.
> 
> I don't mind if people say bless you, but when they say it more then once that pisses the **** out of me. If someone is having an episode than I doubt they want to here "bless you" 20 freaking times.
> 
> I also hate how people say it just to talk(especially during tests). No offense but I hate the way girls and nice guys say it. The way they say it makes me so made because they say it like there a ****ing saint. I just want to yell, " Stop getting it off from saying 'bless you'!!!". It pisses me off.


 
Dude, it's a saying. Get over it.


----------



## shelley (Nov 23, 2011)

"Gesundheit" (German, meaning "health") is a nice secular response to a sneeze if saying "bless you" bothers you.


----------



## Weston (Nov 23, 2011)

Or you could not let stupid crap like that bother you.


----------



## wontolla (Nov 23, 2011)

"Salud" (Spanish, meaning "health") is a nice secular response to a sneeze if saying "bless you" bothers you.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 23, 2011)

I used to say Geh... what Shelly said, but not many people say it here so it sounds weird, Later I realised it's just a phrase so now I say Bless You as it's polite. I don't think anyone now adays says it for it's supposed original purpose. Sneezing isn't the herald of death that it used to be


----------



## Muesli (Nov 23, 2011)

cheatmasterbw said:


> Just a quick question for the atheists here:
> 
> Do you say "Bless You" when someone sneezes, or do people say it to you ever?


 
Sure, why not? Bless you has essentially evolved to be an acknowledgement of someone sneezing. I don't go out of my way to say it but if someone I know sneezes, then why not.



ZamHalen said:


> Sorry for double posting but since we're on this sort of subject I may as well ask.
> 
> This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?



I don't find it offensive, I just won't join in. I'll not bow my head or clasp my hands but I don't see the need to make a scene. If I'm forced to, however, by authority in spite of my non-religiousness then I will make a scene. Here in the UK it's much less of an issue though.


----------



## SpeedSolve (Nov 23, 2011)

I'd like all the atheists here to read the book Heaven is For Real. I would *love* to see you guys explain those things.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 23, 2011)

SpeedSolve said:


> I'd like all the atheists here to read the book Heaven is For Real. I would *love* to see you guys explain those things.


 
Can you give a gist of what the book is about? I can't be arsed to read the entire book.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 23, 2011)

SpeedSolve said:


> I'd like all the atheists here to read the book Heaven is For Real. I would *love* to see you guys explain those things.


 
Just grabbing the first fantastical quote from the synopsis: "He survives and begins talking about being able to look down and see the doctor operating and his dad praying in the waiting room."
Outerbody experiences are really intersting, I only just learned about this recently. The way we see the world isn't a perfect representation as viewed by our eyes, but rather a image put together by our brain (admitedly almost entirely from what we see). Our eyes are actually very poor quality, only the very smallest part at the center has a 'high resolution', everything else is really blurry, but the way our brain puts the image together we don't really notice this. Also it hides from us bits where the image isn't complete... like the Blindspot.. it's really quite a large chunk (from the hole that the nerves pass through) of our vision but we don't notice it because our brain fills it in (like a really clever photoshop effect). Also Our brain has a really intereting sense of what our bodies look like and where we fit into the world around us. If this part of the brain is damanged (like by a stroke) then our image of ourself in the world comes out of sync... people who experience this have a feeling that there is someone else near them, and it's like they're always being followed. Which sounds horendous.
Now outerbody experiences are when the brain shifts the viewpoint, it lets you see it's constructed view of your surroundings, and if you turn back your brains version of what you look like. It's not a perfect representation of the world or you, but because your brain is in full control of what you're seeing it never feels like it's not real. It's supposed to be very convincing. There is a perfect test to prove that you're not actually leaving your body though... put a random playing card on top of a wardrobe or somewhere in the room and in an outerbody experience try to see what it is. It's completely impossible. Neurologists understanding of outerbody experiences is so complete that they can actually be induced with drugs or with electric currents. I though that was amazing, I had no idea they were so well understood.

Key point is our brain has amazing control over how we see the world around us, it's very well understood. If a kid was having surgery and was near death (i.e. his brain started shutting down) it's entirely reasonable that his brain would start showing him some crazy s***, going in and out of conciousness he would definitely be having dreams. This sort of stuff is so well understood just by the normal funcions of the brain, there is absolutely no reason to propose supernatural explanations.


----------



## Thompson (Nov 23, 2011)

Christian Cuber Christian Cuber!


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 23, 2011)

I have a question that can apply to everyone:
_If you were to switch to any religion at all but yours and similar to yours (Christian religion to Christian religion doesn't count), which would it be. State your current religion too._

I would go from atheist to Buddhist. I just like their teachings a lot compared to other religions. Although I would probably never switch over in the first place. But this is if I had to do something else.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Nov 23, 2011)

I would be a wizard (Harry Potter). But on a more serious note, I would probably go to Confucianism because of their practices. Also found a really good link: http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm


----------



## Godmil (Nov 23, 2011)

Yuxuibbs said:


> Also found a really good link: http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm



Nice one.
I quite liked Taoism (but without the integration of all the gods that seem to have followed after), also I think the Greek gods were really cool, and the wiccan one would be funky if it was real.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 23, 2011)

I would prefer Confucianism, but I thought it was more of a philosophy.


----------



## baseball-chicago (Nov 23, 2011)

I am a Christian, Roman Catholic to be specific. I would be glad to try to answer any qestions about it too.


----------



## SpeedSolve (Nov 23, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Just grabbing the first fantastical quote from the synopsis: "He survives and begins talking about being able to look down and see the doctor operating and his dad praying in the waiting room."
> Outerbody experiences are really intersting, I only just learned about this recently. The way we see the world isn't a perfect representation as viewed by our eyes, but rather a image put together by our brain (admitedly almost entirely from what we see). Our eyes are actually very poor quality, only the very smallest part at the center has a 'high resolution', everything else is really blurry, but the way our brain puts the image together we don't really notice this. Also it hides from us bits where the image isn't complete... like the Blindspot.. it's really quite a large chunk (from the hole that the nerves pass through) of our vision but we don't notice it because our brain fills it in (like a really clever photoshop effect). Also Our brain has a really intereting sense of what our bodies look like and where we fit into the world around us. If this part of the brain is damanged (like by a stroke) then our image of ourself in the world comes out of sync... people who experience this have a feeling that there is someone else near them, and it's like they're always being followed. Which sounds horendous.
> Now outerbody experiences are when the brain shifts the viewpoint, it lets you see it's constructed view of your surroundings, and if you turn back your brains version of what you look like. It's not a perfect representation of the world or you, but because your brain is in full control of what you're seeing it never feels like it's not real. It's supposed to be very convincing. There is a perfect test to prove that you're not actually leaving your body though... put a random playing card on top of a wardrobe or somewhere in the room and in an outerbody experience try to see what it is. It's completely impossible. Neurologists understanding of outerbody experiences is so complete that they can actually be induced with drugs or with electric currents. I though that was amazing, I had no idea they were so well understood.
> 
> Key point is our brain has amazing control over how we see the world around us, it's very well understood. If a kid was having surgery and was near death (i.e. his brain started shutting down) it's entirely reasonable that his brain would start showing him some crazy s***, going in and out of conciousness he would definitely be having dreams. This sort of stuff is so well understood just by the normal funcions of the brain, there is absolutely no reason to propose supernatural explanations.


 
Alright, but explain how Colton (name of the kid) saw his father's father when he [supposedly]* went to Heaven. Colton had never seen or heard of his father's father, and when he came back from Heaven, he asked his father about 'Pops', which is what Colton's father called him. Also, explain how Colton met his big sister in Heaven, who had been miscarriaged before Colton was even born. Colton's parents never told him about his big sister, fearing he would not understand. 



*I say this for those who would end up probably correcting me. I truly believe he went to Heaven.


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 23, 2011)

The only things from religion I despise are putting their preaches/rants on TV channels every Sunday or for something good happening and hearing "thank God". I can't stand it for serious subjects, but when it comes to sarcasm, I use it all the time.


----------



## Weston (Nov 23, 2011)

SpeedSolve said:


> Alright, but explain how Colton (name of the kid) saw his father's father when he [supposedly]* went to Heaven. Colton had never seen or heard of his father's father, and when he came back from Heaven, he asked his father about 'Pops', which is what Colton's father called him. Also, explain how Colton met his big sister in Heaven, who had been miscarriaged before Colton was even born. Colton's parents never told him about his big sister, fearing he would not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> *I say this for those who would end up probably correcting me. I truly believe he went to Heaven.


 Yeah there's no way the accounts of a 4 year old could have been misconstrued. 

Also, personal experiences are very very unconvincing when it comes to religious debates. Every single religion has had followers that have had personal experiences with their god(s), and all religions can't be right. (You can all be wrong though.)


----------



## IanTheCuber (Nov 23, 2011)

Three things you should never discuss in public:

Politicians
War
Religion!


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 23, 2011)

IanTheCuber said:


> Politicians


 
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL 

RON PAUL Y/N

I don't actually support him.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 23, 2011)

SpeedSolve said:


> Alright, but explain how Colton (name of the kid) saw his father's father when he [supposedly]* went to Heaven. Colton had never seen or heard of his father's father, and when he came back from Heaven, he asked his father about 'Pops', which is what Colton's father called him. Also, explain how Colton met his big sister in Heaven, who had been miscarriaged before Colton was even born. Colton's parents never told him about his big sister, fearing he would not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> *I say this for those who would end up probably correcting me. I truly believe he went to Heaven.


 
There are plenty of plausible explanations for how this ended up happening. 

1) Colton could have overheard their parents discussing "Pops" or his older sister. 
2) Colton could have heard only a little bit and filled it in with what he has seen on TV, etc. I know many children who tell absurd stories as if they were real.
3) He could have stumbled upon pictures of Pop if he described him. 
4) Their parents could have dismissed many of the incorrect statements Colton made when first talking to his parents about this. This dismissal often happens with people who believe a psychic is actually talking to the dead or something. If you want to know more about psychics I'd suggest watching Penn and Teller's BS episode on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb39htpY6dU. It's a really great episode that explains how psychics trick people into thinking that the psychics have supernatural powers.

This was just me thinking about it for a few minutes. These types of things convincing people heaven is real is a bit crazy considering all of the possible explanations without anything supernatural being involved.


----------



## RubikZz (Nov 23, 2011)

Wat is atheism.
I don't have a religion, I'm not baptized(??), so iI have nothing.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 23, 2011)

RubikZz said:


> Wat is atheism.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 23, 2011)

Godmil said:


> It makes it to paragraph 4 before demonstrating it's first logical fallacy: the false dicotemy. 'either there is no first cause or god is the first cause'. It doesn't take into account that the big bang itself could be the first cause, it ignores the fact that if a major premise is that everything must have a cause then God must have a cause (otherwise you have special pleading). Also it assumes if there is a supernatural first cause then it must be the Judeo-Christian god (while if you follow this argument there is no reason why it shouldn't be Chronos, Odin, etc.)... You're right First Cause is a really easy one, I bearly mentioned half of the known logical problems with it.



The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen? 

if the big bang is the first cause, which put the universe into existence, and is the ultimate cause of the universe, then the big bang must be eternal. do you get what I mean? what caused the big bang? if it caused itself, then it seems it would be almighty, since what can cause itself to exist? wow the big bang is sounding alot more like a being than a thing now...

I believe that Thomas Aquinas answers your question much better than me in his Summa. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm please read article three.


----------



## Weston (Nov 23, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître


Him being a Catholic priest isn't the least bit significant.


zmikecuber said:


> If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?
> 
> if the big bang is the first cause, which put the universe into existence, and is the ultimate cause of the universe, then the big bang must be eternal. do you get what I mean? what caused the big bang? if it caused itself, then it seems it would be almighty, since what can cause itself to exist? wow the big bang is sounding alot more like a being than a thing now...


What? No?
Are you trying to say that the big bang is god?
This is just like the cosmological argument, which is a terrible argument.

I almost think you're trolling.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 23, 2011)

I guess nobody read my earlier posts *sigh*

You say that nothing can cause itself into existence, yes? Than how did god come, before everything else?


----------



## Escher (Nov 23, 2011)

St. Thomas Aquinas aka "If God did exist then he would have the property of existing therefore God cannot not exist" lol.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 23, 2011)

Weston said:


> Him being a Catholic priest isn't the least bit significant.
> 
> What? No?
> Are you trying to say that the big bang is god?
> ...


 
No, he's saying... If there's the big bang at the beginning, then is that really at the beginning? How can you have a beginning with nothing then suddenly something?
Don't tell me a God (or ultimate being or thing or even the universe) has existed forever, because forever with nothing happening means... No time at all.
With nothing happening time doesn't pass. Everything, by the looks of it, is up to our own observation. Think about that... It really gets your mind going!

Things need to happen in order for time to actually pass. Thats what I came to when I looked at it...
Therefore what was there at the beginning? Nothing? Therefore how can something come out of nothing. 
Everything has a cause, you see.
I doubt he's trying to troll.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Nov 23, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?


 
The big bang was caused by hot and dense things that exploded in the universe and expanded. The universe was created out of luck and coincidence.

or the universe was created by a time traveler (family guy).


----------



## Muesli (Nov 23, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
> 
> If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?
> 
> ...


 
We don't know. Repeat after me. We...Don't...Know. 

Why are you trying to call the Big Bang your god? We already have a name for it.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 24, 2011)

5BLD said:


> No, he's saying... If there's the big bang at the beginning, then is that really at the beginning? How can you have a beginning with nothing then suddenly something?
> Don't tell me a God (or ultimate being or thing or even the universe) has existed forever, because forever with nothing happening means... No time at all.
> With nothing happening time doesn't pass. Everything, by the looks of it, is up to our own observation. Think about that... It really gets your mind going!
> 
> ...


 
That is what Im trying to say, thanks.  And no, Im not trying to troll  I just find this theory fascinating, and the more you think about it the more you understand of it. 

I wont say that God has existed forever. I would say that with the creation of matter came the creation of time. "space time" as scientists call it. thus God must be outside of time if He truly created "space time".

something to remember is that God doesnt exist in matter. he created it. (with the big bang) things exist other than matter. 

how can we prove this? well first lets try to disprove it.

so lets say that matter and space is all that exists. we can just say "matter is all that exists". this concept, this understanding isnt just in our minds though. its a CONCEPT. thus its not matter, and its contradicting itself. by its own words it cant exist, since its a concept, and isnt made of matter. yet the concept "matter is all that exists" does exist. we can understand that with simple apprehension. thus "matter is all the exists" must be false.



> The big bang was caused by hot and dense things that exploded in the universe and expanded. The universe was created out of luck and coincidence.



how did that "hot and dense" things get put into existence? what was it's cause? has it always existed? 



> You say that nothing can cause itself into existence, yes? Than how did god come, before everything else?



God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)

sooo yeah... I actually have to go to bed now. I'll reply tomorrow if the thread doesnt die out.. Im not trying to troll, and Im definitely not offended by anybody being an atheist.


----------



## Weston (Nov 24, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> I wont say that God has existed forever. I would say that with the creation of matter came the creation of time. "space time" as scientists call it. thus God must be outside of time if He truly created "space time".
> 
> something to remember is that God doesnt exist in matter. he created it. (with the big bang) things exist other than matter.
> 
> ...


What is your definition of "exists?"
You're just creating wordplay.




zmikecuber said:


> how did that "hot and dense" things get put into existence? what was it's cause? has it always existed?
> 
> 
> 
> God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)


aaand do you have evidence for any of this? You can't just assert things to be true just because make sense in your head. They have to be based off of substantial evidence. Please don't try to use the Bible as evidence. Also, how does this relate to Christianity?


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 24, 2011)

Lol, wow, this thread is still going? I got bored 10 pages ago...


----------



## Godmil (Nov 24, 2011)

Agh too early to type big replays on iPod... But there is more than matter in the universe there are lots of energies (though admittedly they are tied to matter; E=MC^2) and forces (though I may be wrong - Higgs Boson and such like) but anyway it's besides the point... The 'Idea being not matter' argument is flat out wrong, MRI scans clearly show when people think about things there is detectable physical activity in the brain.



zmikecuber said:


> how can we prove this? well first lets try to disprove it.


Fraud not, by definition you can't disprove a negative. (I could invent ideas all day that you could never disprove, it wouldn't make them right. Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect example of this.)
The burden of proof I'm afraid is on the person making the claims. To be rationally justified in a belief a person must demonstrate why their idea is more reasonable than not.


----------



## shelley (Nov 24, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> Lol, wow, this thread is still going? I got bored 10 pages ago...


 
Religion is a topic that a lot of people feel strongly about. What exactly were you expecting?


----------



## stoic (Nov 24, 2011)

Godmil said:


> there is more than matter in the universe there are lots of energies (though admittedly they are tied to matter; E=MC^2) and forces (though I may be wrong - Higgs Boson and such like)



Interesting research this week suggests E=MC^2 might be wrong



Godmil said:


> The burden of proof I'm afraid is on the person making the claims. To be rationally justified in a belief a person must demonstrate why their idea is more reasonable than not.



There's the rub. Religion places a higher value on "faith" (i.e. deliberately believing something despite evidence to the contrary) than on rational justification.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 24, 2011)

ellwd said:


> Interesting research this week suggests E=MC^2 might be wrong



Yeah I heard about that. Can't wait to see how it turns out. Just to be pedantic though, it doesn't mean the equation is wrong (it still works perfectly in nearly every experiment)... it could just point to holes/special cases in relativity.
Really interesting though... faster than light speeds... exciting time to be a physicist.



ellwd said:


> There's the rub. Religion places a higher value on "faith" (i.e. deliberately believing something despite evidence to the contrary) than on rational justification.



True, and that's fine as long as they then don't claim to have a rational justification... and definitely not claim to have any scientific proof.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 24, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)


 
You're just pushing the process back a step. We already have a word for existence, and that's the universe. Why can't I say that the universe brought itself into existence, removing your god from the equation with no logical consequence?

I'd love an answer from you for this point, or any of the other points I've made.


----------



## Escher (Nov 24, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)


 
The 'prime mover' argument rests on the idea that A always causes and precedes B. Until we actually understand causality and time and can either rule out or explain apparent exceptions then it's presumptuous to use it.

Another point; existence is not a predicate.


----------



## stoic (Nov 24, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Yeah I heard about that. Can't wait to see how it turns out. Just to be pedantic though, it doesn't mean the equation is wrong (it still works perfectly in nearly every experiment)... it could just point to holes/special cases in relativity.
> Really interesting though... faster than light speeds... exciting time to be a physicist.
> .


 
Yeah really fascinating work being done at the moment. I guess the closer you get to a Big Bang/singularity event the more concepts like speed and time get messed up.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 24, 2011)

ellwd said:


> There's the rub. Religion places a higher value on "faith" (i.e. deliberately believing something despite evidence to the contrary) than on rational justification.


 
I fear you have seriously misunderstood the definition of faith.

Also, is this thread about religion, or why Christianity is wrong now?


----------



## stoic (Nov 24, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I fear you have seriously misunderstood the definition of faith.


 
How have I misunderstood?


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 24, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I fear you have seriously misunderstood the definition of faith.
> 
> Also, is this thread about religion, or why Christianity is wrong now?


 
Religion, with a topic (for now), in this case it seems to be why Christianity is wrong.


----------



## Escher (Nov 24, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I fear you have seriously misunderstood the definition of faith.



This happens a lot unfortunately.



JonnyWhooeps said:


> Also, is this thread about religion, or why Christianity is wrong now?


 
Well the arguments from religious people itt have been primarily Christian. It's also the easiest faith to bash since some of it's members like to categorically state that everything in the Bible is solid fact. It would be nice if people actually researched the origins of the Bible and read some academic work concerning it and similar oral histories/traditions, rather than reading some Wikipedia articles and watching some youtube videos and then proclaiming to be an expert on the matter.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 24, 2011)

Likewise, how is it possible for God to come into existence from nothing? Has he always been here or what? Then where's the beginning?


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 24, 2011)

It's *impossible* to argue against others' beliefs because that's their own beliefs which are true to them. If they are convinced they will simply change their own beliefs. There's no absolute truth.

Mind you, it's interesting to think about other possibilities as there have been mentioned in this thread...


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 24, 2011)

5BLD said:


> There's no absolute truth.


 
Are you sure about that? Think carefully before you answer.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 24, 2011)

Double post.

For those of you who are philosophically minded, and are willing to consider that Christianity may actually have a legitimate foundation for belief, consider reading the book "He is There, and He is Not Silent" by Francis A. Schaeffer. Very interesting approach to determine several different ways that force the necessity of a transcendental being. But don't even bother reading if you're not even willing to admit you may be wrong.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 24, 2011)

Muesli said:


> You're just pushing the process back a step. We already have a word for existence, and that's the universe. Why can't I say that the universe brought itself into existence, removing your god from the equation with no logical consequence?
> 
> I'd love an answer from you for this point, or any of the other points I've made.



the universe bringing itself into existence? thats illogical and impossible. in order for it to bring itself into existence, it must have preceeded itself in order to put itself into existence. a thing that doesnt exist can not precede itself.

if Im wrong, and the universe DID cause itself for existence, then it must be God, because something causing itself into existence is impossible.

You apparently must not have read article 3 or didnt understand it...

an excerpt (which answers your question ): 

"motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "



> The 'prime mover' argument rests on the idea that A always causes and precedes B. Until we actually understand causality and time and can either rule out or explain apparent exceptions then it's presumptuous to use it.



so youre saying that since we cant (or dont yet) understand time and causality, that we cant come to any conclusions about God? cant you say that about anything then? 



> It's impossible to argue against others' beliefs because that's their own beliefs which are true to them. If they are convinced they will simply change their own beliefs. There's no absolute truth.



theres no absolute truth? thats a self contradiction. if there is no truth then the statement "there is no truth" must be the truth... in other words "the truth is that there is no truth". youve contradicted yourself. "there is no truth" cannot be true, because if it is true, then that statement "there is no truth" must be false, because there is in fact truth, and the truth is "there is no truth."



> You can't just assert things to be true just because make sense in your head.



thats how people work. thats ridiculous. we cant really be sure of anything then, can we? since if we are sure of something its because "its just making sense in our head." if you get what I mean... how can we be sure of the law of gravity? after all it only "makes sense in our head".



> Him being a Catholic priest isn't the least bit significant.



I was simply making the point that apparently fine scientific minds do agree with St. Thomas Aquinas' "nonsensical arguments" as you call them... that doesnt make them true in any way, but it does give them more credibility. 

I have to say, I like Thomas Aquinas because he makes you think... and I think my favorite pastime is thinking.. 



> Lol, wow, this thread is still going? I got bored 10 pages ago...



haha, I know really? xD 

I think Ive proved at least that not all theists take everything on blind faith, and do actually think. at least I certainly have. 

happy thanksgiving!  man its gonna be busy here today... :|


----------



## Olji (Nov 24, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> the universe bringing itself into existence? thats illogical and impossible. in order for it to bring itself into existence, it must have preceeded itself in order to put itself into existence. a thing that doesnt exist can not precede itself.
> 
> if Im wrong, and the universe DID cause itself for existence, then it must be God, because something causing itself into existence is impossible.


 
*Jumps in*
My friend told me he had seen some documentary where they explained that the quantum physics was the cause for the big bang, got no real source for it, and will not do anything at all to defend myself since I'm not sure if that is right, although I think it sound plausible (but I'm not that good at physics).
Just wanted to throw that in here...
*Runs away*


----------



## Weston (Nov 24, 2011)

If anyone else says "if this is the case, then it must be god!", or anything similar, again, I'm going to kill myself.

(I don't know how to punctuate that sentence.)


----------



## tehmaxice (Nov 24, 2011)

If you haven't watched 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, and you're a bit nerdy, go do it!

ps. Fast forward to 2:10 if you don't want to listen to the introduction.


ot:
I find religion (well christianity is probably the only one I really know something about) mostly harmless and a waste of time. 
The religious people i really despise are anti-scientific Intelligent Design proponents and gay bashers, but luckily they aren't common around here.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 24, 2011)

Weston said:


> If anyone else says "if this is the case, then it must be god!", or anything similar, again, I'm going to kill myself.


 
Are you serious? How can you look at the human eye and think that just magically happened?!

Obviously it had to be designed. Who designed it? Must be god.

Therefore god exists.


----------



## avgdi (Nov 24, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Sorry for double posting but since we're on this sort of subject I may as well ask.
> 
> This is a question for atheists.If there is a traditional prayer as being part of a non-religious group would you participate for the sake of tradition or would you find it offensive?
> 
> This happened last year and the person kind of made a scene out of it.


 
When I was younger and was around people that prayed I found it offensive. I wouldn't make a huge scene out of not participating, but it was obvious.
Now when people pray I bow my head and fold my hands. I figured I was offending more people by not participating, and it wouldn't kill me to just look like I was joining in, even though I really don't believe it.


----------



## Weston (Nov 24, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Are you serious? How can you look at the human eye and think that just magically happened?!
> 
> Obviously it had to be designed. Who designed it? Must be god.
> 
> Therefore god exists.


 Kind of analogous to finding a watch!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Escher (Nov 24, 2011)

avgdi said:


> When I was younger and was around people that prayed I found it offensive. I wouldn't make a huge scene out of not participating, but it was obvious.
> Now when people pray I bow my head and fold my hands. I figured I was offending more people by not participating, and it wouldn't kill me to just look like I was joining in, even though I really don't believe it.


 
My advice (from personal experience after going to a Catholic school for 5 years) is to not pretend to pray. If anybody gets offended or asks, just say that you think it would be disrespectful to the act of praying to pretend without meaning it, so you don't want to participate.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 24, 2011)

avgdi said:


> I figured I was offending more people by not participating, and it wouldn't kill me to just look like I was joining in, even though I really don't believe it.


 
What if someone is offended that you are a male?


----------



## Escher (Nov 24, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> so youre saying that since we cant (or dont yet) understand time and causality, that we cant come to any conclusions about God? cant you say that about anything then?


 
I'm saying the Prime Mover argument is correct if and only if it can be shown that non-linear causality is not possible.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 24, 2011)

shelley said:


> Religion is a topic that a lot of people feel strongly about. What exactly were you expecting?


 Something new, I guess. It seems everyone is bringing up the same arguments I've already heard a thousand times.


----------



## Louie (Nov 25, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> This thread has been up for a couple hours, so I am assuming that means this is fine for now.
> 
> I am also atheist, but living in such a Christian area (As in not knowing a single other atheist IRL here), I felt like I always wanted to believe in a god when I was younger, since basically everyone I knew (except my family of course) believed in this. I find religion interesting, and I try to respect other's beliefs, but I honestly like the idea of Asian religions much more than others. I think it's that some Asian religions know that they aren't completely correct, and admit that. Compared to (Not trying to judge here) most Christians who believe what they learned to be the absolute truth.
> 
> My dad, like AgentKuo, grew up strict Catholic but became Atheist. Something that I love my family for, is that they told me that I could believe in anything I want at all, and they wouldn't be 'disappointed' or whatever. But I turned out to be atheist, same as them, so it doesn't matter much. One thing that I personally hate a lot is when in history class at school (public school, btw), they mention something about the bible, or make a reference or something, and I don't understand it at all. It's like the "Everyone's American" thing on this thread. Anyway, those are my thoughts, so I say you put an actual discussion here.


 
I live in your area and I'm atheist! 

I think it is so awesome that about half of speedcubers (according to this poll) are atheist! What an interesting stat!


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 25, 2011)

I still find it interesting that the OP knew well enough to separate Christianity from Mormonism, Deism, and Jehovas' Witnesses, but didn't know enough to separate nihilism from atheism and anti-theism.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 25, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I still find it interesting that the OP knew well enough to separate Christianity from Mormonism, Deism, and Jehovas' Witnesses, but didn't know enough to separate nihilism from atheism and anti-theism.


I did know to separate them, but I had to bunch some together because I'm only allowed 10 spots for options. And I've stated about 3 or 4 times now I don't know how to change the poll and no one is letting me know how, so it's really not right to call me out for this.



Kirjava said:


> Are you serious? How can you look at the human eye and think that just magically happened?!
> 
> Obviously it had to be designed. Who designed it? Must be god.
> 
> Therefore god exists.


LMAO...thank you kirjava, you amuse me.


----------



## avgdi (Nov 25, 2011)

Escher said:


> My advice (from personal experience after going to a Catholic school for 5 years) is to not pretend to pray. If anybody gets offended or asks, just say that you think it would be disrespectful to the act of praying to pretend without meaning it, so you don't want to participate.


 
That makes total sense, but I currently interning at a church (kind of a long story, but a short explanation: the youth pastor at the church, who is a really good friend of mine, needed an intern and since I didn't have a job I offered. It's pretty much something to occupy my time while I look for a job so I don't sit around all day doing nothing, and I'm helping out a friend.) and I am around praying people all the time and I really don't feel like having to explain that to people a bunch of times, it's just not a battle that I feel I need to fight.



Hershey said:


> What if someone is offended that you are a male?


 
That is a battle that I would fight.


----------



## shelley (Nov 26, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> the universe bringing itself into existence? thats illogical and impossible. in order for it to bring itself into existence, it must have preceeded itself in order to put itself into existence. a thing that doesnt exist can not precede itself.
> 
> if Im wrong, and the universe DID cause itself for existence, then it must be God, because something causing itself into existence is impossible.



If nothing can cause itself into existence, how does God exist?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 26, 2011)

shelley said:


> If nothing can cause itself into existence, how does God exist?


 
You assume that God had a beginning. If He had/has a beginning, then your point is perfectly valid. However, the God that is described in the Christian Bible has no beginning.


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 26, 2011)

I was listening to one of my favourite metal bands and these were some of the lyrics, 
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians
Who acknowledge things by their lips,
Then walk out the door and deny them by their lifestyle
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." - War of Ages

I realized this is totally true, so I felt like posting it here.


----------



## shelley (Nov 27, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> You assume that God had a beginning. If He had/has a beginning, then your point is perfectly valid. However, the God that is described in the Christian Bible has no beginning.


 
So you need an explanation for the beginning of the universe, but you don't feel the need to question the beginning of God? Why is that?


----------



## Dene (Nov 27, 2011)

shelley said:


> So you need an explanation for the beginning of the universe, but you don't feel the need to question the beginning of God? Why is that?


 
Haven't read the thread at all, but I thought I would point out how silly your question is Shelley. The universe itself is restricted by physical laws, but a God is not. The origins of a God need not be questioned because it's beyond human understanding. (Whether or not you think this is a good explanation is of course a completely different issue).


----------



## Florian (Nov 27, 2011)

No one mentioned the church of google


» PROOF #1

Google is the closest thing to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence, which can be scientifically verified. She indexes over 9.5 billion WebPages, which is more than any other search engine on the web today. Not only is Google the closest known entity to being Omniscient, but She also sorts through this vast amount of knowledge using Her patented PageRank technology, organizing said data and making it easily accessible to us mere mortals.

» PROOF #2

Google is everywhere at once (Omnipresent). Google is virtually everywhere on earth at the same time. Billions of indexed WebPages hosted from every corner of the earth. With the proliferation of Wi-Fi networks, one will eventually be able to access Google from anywhere on earth, truly making Her an omnipresent entity.

» PROOF #3

Google answers prayers. One can pray to Google by doing a search for whatever question or problem is plaguing them. As an example, you can quickly find information on alternative cancer treatments, ways to improve your health, new and innovative medical discoveries and generally anything that resembles a typical prayer. Ask Google and She will show you the way, but showing you is all She can do, for you must help yourself from that point on.

» PROOF #4

Google is potentially immortal. She cannot be considered a physical being such as ourselves. Her Algorithms are spread out across many servers; if any of which were taken down or damaged, another would undoubtedly take its place. Google can theoretically last forever.

» PROOF #5

Google is infinite. The Internet can theoretically grow forever, and Google will forever index its infinite growth.

» PROOF #6

Google remembers all. Google caches WebPages regularly and stores them on its massive servers. In fact, by uploading your thoughts and opinions to the internet, you will forever live on in Google's cache, even after you die, in a sort of "Google Afterlife".

» PROOF #7

Google can "do no evil" (Omnibenevolent). Part of Google's corporate philosophy is the belief that a company can make money without being evil.

» PROOF #8

According to Google trends, the term "Google" is searched for more than the terms "God", "Jesus", "Allah", "Buddha", "Christianity", "Islam", "Buddhism" and "Judaism" combined. 

God is thought to be an entity in which we mortals can turn to when in a time of need. Google clearly fulfils this to a much larger degree than traditional "gods", as shown in the image below








» PROOF #9

Evidence of Google's existence is abundant. There is more evidence for the existence of Google than any other God worshiped today. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If seeing is believing, then surf over to www.google.com and experience for yourself Google's awesome power. No faith required.


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 27, 2011)

You sir have converted me to Her. Praise Google.


----------



## Nestor (Nov 27, 2011)

No rational being can confront such evidence and remain unconverted. Praise Google!


----------



## michaelfivez (Nov 27, 2011)

Atheism is such a 'petty' term. When I hear it I imagine 12-16 year olds who know nothing about religion/ phylosophy laughing at 'stupid' things religious people believe. Not realising that their view on it is so narrow (like This guy). 
Anyone who says stuff like 'If God exists why is there then so much suffering in Afrika?' knows nothing about religion/philosophy.

That aside, I consider it irrelevant (to me) if there is a 'higher entity' and I'm not capable of speculating about it (even with myself), so I honestly don't know if I believe in such a thing. That's why I can't answer your poll because even the vote 'other' emplies that I know on what side I am in the discussion.

My 2 cents


----------



## shelley (Nov 27, 2011)

Dene said:


> Haven't read the thread at all, but I thought I would point out how silly your question is Shelley. The universe itself is restricted by physical laws, but a God is not. The origins of a God need not be questioned because it's beyond human understanding. (Whether or not you think this is a good explanation is of course a completely different issue).


 
That's exactly why I don't think it's a good explanation. Why are we allowing for things that are not restricted by physical laws at all? Why is it so unacceptable to just say the origins of the universe are beyond human understanding because we don't understand all of physics yet, but you can just make up whatever you want to fill in the holes?


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 27, 2011)

Another off topic thing...

Why is Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 27, 2011)

michaelfivez said:


> 12-16 year olds who know nothing about religion/ phylosophy


 
that can't be more wrong



Cheese11 said:


> Another off topic thing...
> 
> Why is Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?


 
Why do christians celebrate Yule and the Vernal Equinox?


----------



## JasonK (Nov 27, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Another off topic thing...
> 
> Why is Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?


 "Christmas" has been around a lot longer than Christianity has - pretty much every culture around the world has a celebration around that time. Non-Christians don't celebrate Christmas in the sense of celebrating the birth of Jesus, they're just following their own traditions.


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 27, 2011)

WTF2L? said:


> "Christmas" has been around a lot longer than Christianity has - pretty much every culture around the world has a celebration around that time. Non-Christians don't celebrate Christmas in the sense of celebrating the birth of Jesus, they're just following their own traditions.


 
Nooo, Christianity was formed after the birth of Christ. And we do celebrate the birth of Jesus.


----------



## rubikstaylor (Nov 27, 2011)

I am a Christian but for a while i was confused because the science side of me was arguing against religion..... well i do believe in God. But for a while i didn't know what to believe. Intertwining science and religion helped.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 27, 2011)

The catholic church re-purposed an existing holiday (Yule/winter solstice) in order to celebrate the birth of jesus (who probably got born closer to september/october).
Same with easter.

If you don't believe me, explain where the Christmas tree came from


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 27, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> that can't be more wrong



atheists dont know more about people's religions. people know less about their own religion than atheists. 

I would like an atheist here to show how he knows more about my religion than me. 

also, that is assuming that the person taking the poll can "judge" who knows more about the religion. 

for example an atheist says: Catholics say the pope is always right. this is completely false, but to the person taking the poll they might say "hmm that atheist sure knows alot about Catholicism", as opposed to the ignorant Catholic who says "uh... Pope John Paul II is the Pope still... right? O.O"

so yeah, I would say that atheists might think they know more about other people's religions, but have a flawed knowledge of that religion. so those polls are right, but theyre not in a way.



d4m4s74 said:


> The catholic church re-purposed an existing holiday (Yule/winter solstice) in order to celebrate the birth of jesus (who probably got born closer to september/october).
> Same with easter.
> 
> If you don't believe me, explain where the Christmas tree came from


 
can you find the encyclical for that please?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 27, 2011)

No. I don't have the encyclical for that, but it's quite common knowledge


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 27, 2011)

I really liked the google thing  Nice job.

My family also celebrates Christmas... my eight year old sister still believes in "Santa"


----------



## Louie (Nov 27, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I really liked the google thing  Nice job.
> 
> My family also celebrates Christmas... my eight year old sister still believes in "Santa"


 
Wow. The guy brings you gifts and you say he doesn't exist?! That's harsh, man!


----------



## insane569 (Nov 27, 2011)

Like i said earlier i am atheis but before i was church of god 7th day. We didnt celebrate christmas or any other holiday that had religious origins because the majority were really stupid. Like easter and we also dont celebrate birthdays.
And my beliefs about how the universe was created is that, The universe has been around for a while(dont question it) and we just came from evolution.


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 27, 2011)

Christmas is commercial in the 21st century. It is not because we celebrate Christ, whether or not it was originally. Most Xmas songs I hear sing for a happy new year.


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 27, 2011)

So how many other atheists celebrate "religious" holidays? (Christmas, Easter, etc.)


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 27, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> So how many other atheists celebrate "religious" holidays? (Christmas, Easter, etc.)


 
Nobody in my family is religious enough to talk about it, and I never had much contact with other people, so it took me a while to figure out that there was anything to Christmas beyond it being that day when I got stuff.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 27, 2011)

I celebrate Holiday (from the church of the flying spaghetti monster) and send Holiday cards to my friends
I don't celebrate easter or any other holidays which can be seen as religious


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 27, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> My family also celebrates Christmas... my eight year old sister still believes in "Santa"


 
Don't complain just keep milking it, ask for stuff so your sister keeps believing for awhile.(;

My little brother ruined it by being a brat one day, so keep the little kids in check to keep getting "Santa gifts".


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 27, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Don't complain just keep milking it, ask for stuff so your sister keeps believing for awhile.(;
> 
> My little brother ruined it by being a brat one day, so keep the little kids in check to keep getting "Santa gifts".


 
I'm not complaining.
We get "santa" gifts and "Mom/Dad" gifts... so it should be the same for a while


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 27, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> I'm not complaining.
> We get "santa" gifts and "Mom/Dad" gifts... so it should be the same for a while


 
Christmas.....you're doing it wrong.......but also very correctly.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 27, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> atheists dont know more about people's religions. people know less about their own religion than atheists.
> 
> I would like an atheist here to show how he knows more about my religion than me.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify, the entire questionnaire can be found here: http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf



zmikecuber said:


> so yeah, I would say that atheists might think they know more about other people's religions, but have a flawed knowledge of that religion. so those polls are right, but theyre not in a way.


 
Note that most atheists were once fully apart of a religion. Many atheists actually became atheists after learning more about their religion. One of my favorite atheists, Matt Dillahunty, was actually studying to become a minister when he became atheist.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 27, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Note that most atheists were once fully apart of a religion. Many atheists actually became atheists after learning more about their religion. One of my favorite atheists, Matt Dillahunty, was actually studying to become a minister when he became atheist.


 
On the opposite side of that, though, there are many people who became Christians during the process of trying to disprove Christianity (e.g. C.S. Lewis).


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 27, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> On the opposite side of that, though, there are many people who became Christians during the process of trying to disprove Christianity (i.e. C.S. Lewis).


 
Really? MANY people? And yet you only can name one example, and give no statistics.

Please. Continue.


----------



## Weston (Nov 27, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> On the opposite side of that, though, there are many people who became Christians during the process of trying to disprove Christianity (i.e. C.S. Lewis).


Sigh.


The inability to disprove something *IS NOT *a reason to believe it. You should disbelieve a claim until you have compelling evidence to support it. It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but that doesn't mean that you should believe that everything exists.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 27, 2011)

Whoa, calm down. I was under the impression that this was an Internet forum where there was supposed to be casual discussion. I mentioned one well-known person as an example (hence, e.g.), not a full list.

I wasn't trying to prove anything with my post, just point something out.


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 27, 2011)

Weston said:


> Sigh.
> 
> 
> The inability to disprove something *IS NOT *a reason to believe it. You should disbelieve a claim until you have compelling evidence to support it. It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but that doesn't mean that you should believe that everything exists.


And blowing things out of proportion really isn't helping. Especially when your argument starts with "in my opinion..."


----------



## Stefan (Nov 27, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> I mentioned one well-known person as an example (*hence, i.e.*)


 
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/e.g.html


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 27, 2011)

Stefan said:


> http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/e.g.html


 
I did not know that, thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 27, 2011)

Weston said:


> The inability to disprove something *IS NOT *a reason to believe it. You should disbelieve a claim until you have compelling evidence to support it. It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but that doesn't mean that you should believe that everything exists.


 
But you *can* believe it. You are forgetting that religious views are a personal choice, not yours, not the government's (as far as the US is concerned). You don't have to tell people not to believe in what they believe. And you really don't have to argue about it. As long as a person means no harm(and sometimes that isn't the case) they can believe what they want.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 27, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> But you *can* believe it. You are forgetting that religious views are a personal choice, not yours, not the government's (as far as the US is concerned). You don't have to tell people not to believe in what they believe. And you really don't have to argue about it. As long as a person means no harm(and sometimes that isn't the case) they can believe what they want.


 
But there's no point in arbitrarily believing in something that you don't think is true.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 27, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> But there's no point in arbitrarily believing in something that you don't think is true.


 
Exactly, my point is if you believe its true then you're free to believe that no one has authority to tell that what you believe in religion-wise is wrong.


----------



## shelley (Nov 27, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Another off topic thing...
> 
> Why is Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?



Because I'm not going to complain when the state gives me time off from work. What we know as "Christmas" today has plenty of secular traditions to observe anyway. The birth of Christ is only one part of the holiday.



ZamHalen said:


> But you *can* believe it. You are forgetting that religious views are a personal choice, not yours, not the government's (as far as the US is concerned). You don't have to tell people not to believe in what they believe. And you really don't have to argue about it. As long as a person means no harm(and sometimes that isn't the case) they can believe what they want.



If it's just a personal choice for people I can respect that. What I have a problem with is when people make decisions as if that personal choice were absolute truth, especially when those decisions affect other people. The argument against marriage equality in the US, for example, is nothing but a religious one.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

^You know most questions like that are already answered just google them.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.

And what? I didn't start with "in my opinion."


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.
> 
> And what? I didn't start with "in my opinion."


But you might as well have. Your argument was based on your opinion. Opinion is subjective.



> You should disbelieve a claim until you have compelling evidence to support it.


This is opinion. I agree with it, but it is still your opinion.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2011)

I feel this whole thread would move much more smoothly if both sides of this meaningless argument would stop attacking straw men.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.


 
Why not?Is it truthfully harmful in most cases (most is the keyword)?If anything to some it's supportive. So, why not?


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> But you might as well have. Your argument was based on your opinion. Opinion is subjective.
> 
> 
> This is opinion. I agree with it, but it is still your opinion.


 What I essentially said was that it is more reasonable to believe something if you have evidence for it than to believe something if you don't have evidence. That's not an opinion.



ZamHalen said:


> Why not?Is it truthfully harmful in most cases (most is the keyword)?If anything to some it's supportive. So, why not?



Yes, believing in things that you have no evidence for is harmful in most cases. 

Some people find alcohol supportive too. That doesn't mean its good to drink alcohol.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Note that most atheists were once fully apart of a religion. Many atheists actually became atheists after learning more about their religion. One of my favorite atheists, Matt Dillahunty, was actually studying to become a minister when he became atheist.



religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.

hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.

its the reason WHY they changed their beliefs that is important.



PatrickJameson said:


> Just to clarify, the entire questionnaire can be found here: http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf.


 
those questions were very basic. perhaps atheists have a broader view of religions, but that individual survey did not go into any of the religions deeply at all. it was just general knowledge of some names of stuff etc. etc.

for example... that survey did not go into the reason WHY religions believe what they believe... I wonder how atheists would do on... say the Biblical and Traditional references as to why Catholics believe in the Eucharist. or about Jihad in Islam.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.
> 
> hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.
> 
> ...


Atheism doesn't need any proving.

I was a Christian for 14 years, so I have a pretty good understanding of Christianity.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You atheists are gonna feel stupid when you end up in hell with the blacks and homosexuals.


 
What about the jews?


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> Atheism doesn't need any proving..



thats why its so easy to be an atheist.



Kirjava said:


> You atheists are gonna feel stupid when you end up in hell with the blacks and homosexuals.



Nobody said that. Least I sure didnt.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> Yes, believing in things that you have no evidence for is harmful in most cases.
> 
> Some people find alcohol supportive too. That doesn't mean its good to drink alcohol.


 
Explain how religion is 100% dangerous in the modern age (I'm not talking extremists I mean the every day guy from your school who sat next to you in physics). What are we going to do pray you to death (I honestly don't even think that's allowed)? Modern day, "real" religious leaders truthfully don't have access to actual armies (again, extremists in any religion have been misguided, therefore don't count) so what is there to worry about. If your referring to control over the followers then that's very vague as many that claim to follow don't follow as devoutly as others so there's no true threat in that. Or are you one of the *******s who claims religion creates *****s, because if that's so I must argue that a good majority of the atheists I've met IRL are in fact some of the dumbest and illogical people I know (I mean in terms of everything outside of religion as I don't judge based on philosophies NOTE:This is not a generalization just what I've personally seen). Now as far as your alcohol argument goes, the general consensus is that it is in fact harmful in large use just as anything else is.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

Assuming String theory is true, then could any atheist here stay an atheist?

What I'm getting at is that we're 3 dimensional beings. Wouldn't that imply that we have 3 dimensional logic? If that is true, and String theory is true, you have a incomplete logical process. So would you still be an atheist even with an incomplete logical process?


----------



## Hershey (Nov 28, 2011)

Making people believe in things without evidence is harmful for us humans.
Making people close minded is harmful.
Telling young kids that they will burn in hell for all eternity if they don't follow Christianity is harmful.
Choosing faith (believing in something without evidence) over science and knowledge is harmful.

There are many more, a lot of examples are talked about in this 48 min long video.




EnterPseudonym said:


> Assuming String theory is true, then could any atheist here stay an atheist?
> 
> What I'm getting at is that we're 3 dimensional beings. Wouldn't that imply that we have 3 dimensional logic? If that is true, and String theory is true, you have a incomplete logical process. So would you still be an atheist even with an incomplete logical process?


 
Would you still be religious if you knew we had an incomplete logical process? Just because you don't know something, does not mean you can keep playing this stupid guessing game of all these religions around the world.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

Somebody please prove that God doesnt exist, and prove St. Thomas Aquinas wrong.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Nobody said that.


 
I'm pretty sure that I just said that.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.
> 
> hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.
> 
> ...



I agree that the reason why people changed their beliefs is important. And I also agree that this survey shows that atheists have a broader view of religions. But shouldn't everyone have a broad view of religions? Without a broad view, how do you know your religion is correct? (I'd like to know your personal answer to this).

One of the main reasons I stopped believing in a god was due to the extremely large number of religions out there. With this many religions, each of which have members who have a belief that is just as strong as members from other religions, how is it possible to know which is correct? 

In fact, just about every religious person has adopted their current religion because they were brought up with that belief. If you were brought up in the middle east, you would most likely be Muslim. If you were brought up in Ancient Greece, you would be under Zeus. In China, you would most likely be Buddhist. Are you an exception? Why did you ultimately choose your religion?


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Choosing faith (believing in something without evidence) over science and knowledge is harmful.


 
You and others rely to much on this "choice" when you argue. What if there is no choice and both are used. Where does your argument over harm go now?


----------



## Muesli (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Somebody please prove that God doesnt exist, and prove St. Thomas Aquinas wrong.


 
Nobody needs to prove that God doesn't exist. You need to prove that he does. Do you really think that if St. Thomas' argument was all that convincing we'd be arguing about the existence of this all powerful God on a Speedcubing forum?

Inb4athiestconspiracybecauseatheistshategodlol


----------



## Hershey (Nov 28, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> One of the main reasons I stopped believing in a god was due to the extremely large number of religions out there. With this many religions, each of which have members who have a belief that is just as strong as members from other religions, how is it possible to know which is correct?
> 
> In fact, just about every religious person has adopted their current religion because they were brought up with that belief. If you were brought up in the middle east, you would most likely be Muslim. If you were brought up in Ancient Greece, you would be under Zeus. In China, you would most likely be Buddhist. Are you an exception? Why did you ultimately choose your religion?


 
This is also one reason I am an atheist.



ZamHalen said:


> What if there is no choice and both are used.


 
Shénme? Religion and science?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Somebody please prove that God doesnt exist, and prove St. Thomas Aquinas wrong.


The fundamental flaw with this question is that you're asking us to prove god doesn't exist, when it's your job to prove to us that he does.

Ninja'd


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Explain how religion is 100% dangerous in the modern age (I'm not talking extremists I mean the every day guy from your school who sat next to you in physics). What are we going to do pray you to death (I honestly don't even think that's allowed)? Modern day, "real" religious leaders truthfully don't have access to actual armies (again, extremists in any religion have been misguided, therefore don't count) so what is there to worry about. If your referring to control over the followers then that's very vague as many that claim to follow don't follow as devoutly as others so there's no true threat in that. Or are you one of the *******s who claims religion creates *****s, because if that's so I must argue that a good majority of the atheists I've met IRL are in fact some of the dumbest and illogical people I know (I mean in terms of everything outside of religion as I don't judge based on philosophies NOTE:This is not a generalization just what I've personally seen). Now as far as your alcohol argument goes, the general consensus is that it is in fact harmful in large use just as anything else is.


Nobody said religion was 100% dangerous. All I have said is that it is unreasonable to follow a religion. I'm not saying that religion (or Christianity, since that's what we are talking about mostly) isn't harmful though. It is harmful. And these "extremists" aren't actually extremists. They are just doing what the Bible says. What most Christians do could be considered extreme. They ignore certain parts of the Bible and consider other parts. They pick and choose parts of the Bible because they know better, in other words, they are overriding the Bible with their own morals because their own morals are superior to the morals of the Bible. So in essence, Christianity and the Bible become useless for morality. So then, the only thing that Christianity is doing is influencing the people that you call "extremists" to do the terrible things that they do.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> I agree that the reason why people changed their beliefs is important. And I also agree that this survey shows that atheists have a broader view of religions. But shouldn't everyone have a broad view of religions? Without a broad view, how do you know your religion is correct? (I'd like to know your personal answer to this).
> 
> One of the main reasons I stopped believing in a god was due to the extremely large number of religions out there. With this many religions, each of which have members who have a belief that is just as strong as members from other religions, how is it possible to know which is correct?
> 
> In fact, just about every religious person has adopted their current religion because they were brought up with that belief. If you were brought up in the middle east, you would most likely be Muslim. If you were brought up in Ancient Greece, you would be under Zeus. In China, you would most likely be Buddhist. Are you an exception? Why did you ultimately choose your religion?



I do believe I have a wide view of the different religions of the world. except perhaps the eastern religions.

thats no reason to stop believing in God. Saying: "One of the main reasons I stopped believing in a god was due to the extremely large number of religions out there." is flawed logic. :|

sure maybe its hard to find the true religion, but imagine if God did actually exist... there would be a heck of a lot of religions claiming to be God founded trying to take you in.. it would be a very good sales trick, regardless of whether or not God does in fact exist.



EnterPseudonym said:


> The fundamental flaw with this question is that you're asking us to prove god doesn't exist, when it's your job to prove to us that he does.
> 
> Ninja'd



why? the onus is on the individual. I am not required to prove anything to you.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> thats no reason to stop believing in God. Saying: "There are so many religions. Therefore God does not exist." is flawed logic. :|


 
I hate to interject here but if you're going to continue the discussion can you please, _please_ respond to what people are actually saying.

Also, you're conflating Gnostic atheism with Agnostic atheism. I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who claim knowledge that a God doesn't exist. I, for one, am an Agnostic Atheist; I do not *know* that no god exists, but I do not *believe* that one does because I have not been convinced.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

Muesli said:


> I hate to interject here but if you're going to continue the discussion can you please, _please_ respond to what people are actually saying.



ok sorry, Imma edit it quick.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> I do believe I have a wide view of the different religions of the world. except perhaps the eastern religions.
> 
> thats no reason to stop believing in God. Saying: "There are so many religions. Therefore God does not exist." is flawed logic. :|



Please don't change what I say. I said that because there are so many religions with people who believe very very very strongly in each religion, how do you know your religion is correct?



zmikecuber said:


> sure maybe its hard to find the true religion, but imagine if God did actually exist... there would be a heck of a lot of religions claiming to be God founded trying to take you in.. it would be a very good sales trick, regardless of whether or not God does in fact exist.



How is your religion different?


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> Nobody said religion was 100% dangerous. All I have said is that it is unreasonable to follow a religion. I'm not saying that religion (or Christianity, since that's what we are talking about mostly) isn't harmful though. It is harmful. And these "extremists" aren't actually extremists. They are just doing what the Bible says. What most Christians do could be considered extreme. They ignore certain parts of the Bible and consider other parts. They ignore parts of the Bible because they know better, in other words, they are overriding the Bible with their own morals because their own morals are superior to the morals of the Bible. So in essence, Christianity and the Bible become useless for morality. So then, the only thing that Christianity is doing is influencing the people that you call "extremists" to do the terrible things that they do.


 
I was referring to religious extremists in general but as far as the bible thing goes, yes it's a book which contains key fundamental values but much of it is an allegory and contains examples of principals on which the religion is based. Now let me change my definition of extremist temporarily to yours.Let's use Westboro Baptist Church as an example, rather than spread a peaceful message, which would be the message that is spread, they spread a message of hatred and anger. Now honestly are comparing devout followers of the peaceful aspects to the hateful values of people like those from Westboro (otherwise extremists by your definition)?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> why? the onus is on the individual. I am not required to prove anything to you.


You are the one claiming that a supernatural deity exists, thus you must prove that the deity exists. When someone claims something it is their job to prove it, not for the other person to go and look for proof.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> thats no reason to stop believing in God. Saying: "There are so many religions. Therefore God does not exist." is flawed logic. :|


That's not at all what he meant. He meant that there are thousands of religions making mutually exclusive claims, including his, and he realized that he didn't have a good reason to believe in his religion over a different religion.



zmikecuber said:


> why? the onus is on the individual. I am not required to prove anything to you.


If you want your claims to be justified, then yes you are. You don't have to prove it to us, but you have to be able to prove it (if you want to be a reasonable human being).


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> If you want your claims to be justified, then yes you are. You don't have to prove it to us, but you have to be able to prove it (if you want to be a reasonable human being).



did anybody even read this? 



Spoiler



Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2011)

I have a question for all the people saying that those who believe in God must prove His existence, and those who don't believe can simply sit back and watch.

Where is the starting point? Is the starting point that there is no God, or that we don't know if there is a God?


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> did anybody even read this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yup. Then I lol'd at it.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> I was referring to religious extremists in general but as far as the bible thing goes, yes it's a book which contains key fundamental values but much of it is an allegory and contains examples of principals on which the religion is based. Now let me change my definition of extremist temporarily to yours.Let's use Westboro Baptist Church as an example, rather than spread a peaceful message, which would be the message that is spread, they spread a message of hatred and anger. Now honestly are comparing devout followers of the peaceful aspects to the hateful values of people like those from Westboro (otherwise extremists by your definition)?


No, that's not what I said at all. 
There are good lessons in the Bible, and there are bad lessons in the Bible. Some people like the Westboro Baptist Church members pay attention to all of the Bible, and spread hatred. Some people, "normal" Christians, generally ignore the bad stuff and follow the good stuff.

Here's the problem though. How do they know which parts to ignore and which parts to follow? The only way they would know is if they already had a morality system within them, independent from the religion. So, the Bible isn't giving them any morals, they are getting it from themselves. The Bible doesn't inspire people to do good things, because people already do good things. The Bible only inspires people to do bad things, like the Westboro Baptist Church.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 28, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Where is the starting point? Is the starting point that there is no God, or that we don't know if there is a God?


 
Well, lets say a scientist wanted to find a medicine that will help cure a disease. The scientist will make a hypothesis saying that the medicine will not work. Then the scientist would start looking for evidence to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

*cough cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis *cough cough*

So yes, the starting point would be to make a hypothesis that there is no god.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> did anybody even read this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Challenge Accepted.

You believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent, correct?


----------



## Hershey (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Somebody please prove that God doesnt exist.


 
Well to start,

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gAeYxgwuSo


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Well, lets say a scientist wanted to find a medicine that will help cure a disease. The scientist will make a hypothesis saying that the medicine will not work. Then the scientist would start looking for evidence to prove or disprove this hypothesis.
> 
> *cough cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis *cough cough*
> 
> So yes, the starting point would be to make a hypothesis that there is no god.


 
So then, your hypothesis is that there is no God, and my hypothesis is that there is one. We both are responsible for the proof of our claims.

Peace out guys, sleepytiem.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> did anybody even read this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Literally all of those arguments were "I don't understand this stuff, so it must be god."


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Well to start,
> 
> “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> ...


 "As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."

I'll continue with my original point when he replies.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 28, 2011)

EnterPseudonym said:


> "As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."


 
How exactly can someone produce good from evil?`


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

Hershey said:


> How exactly can someone produce good from evil?`


 Well quite simply, the apocalypse.
It is said in the book of revelations that after the apocalypse happens there will be a time when Jesus reigns and there will be no evil, but for this to happen there has to be evil.


----------



## Escher (Nov 28, 2011)

I honestly don't understand why zmikecuber posted from Summa Theologica. St Thomas Aquinas' arguments are 700 years old and although an interesting waypoint for Western philosophy, certainly not relevant any more. Objections are reasonably put forward here: http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/2007/10/five-ways-of-aquinas_07.html

There are very few arguments that provide anything close to proof in God and I wish that people would stop posting ancient and disproved ones here.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> No, that's not what I said at all.
> There are good lessons in the Bible, and there are bad lessons in the Bible. Some people like the Westboro Baptist Church members pay attention to all of the Bible, and spread hatred. Some people, "normal" Christians, generally ignore the bad stuff and follow the good stuff.
> 
> Here's the problem though. How do they know which parts to ignore and which parts to follow? The only way they would know is if they already had a morality system within them, independent from the religion. So, the Bible isn't giving them any morals, they are getting it from themselves. The Bible doesn't inspire people to do good things, because people already do good things.* The Bible only inspires people to do bad things*, like the Westboro Baptist Church.


 
Well there is a very closed minded idea, as I would argue that people who twist the bible inspire people to do bad things. Also in terms of morals in Christianity those are obviously derived from the 10 commandments are they not?


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> What most Christians do could be considered extreme. They ignore certain parts of the Bible and consider other parts. They pick and choose parts of the Bible because they know better, in other words, they are overriding the Bible with their own morals because their own morals are superior to the morals of the Bible. So in essence, Christianity and the Bible become useless for morality. So then, the only thing that Christianity is doing is influencing the people that you call "extremists" to do the terrible things that they do.


 
They're doinitwrong. If you say you believe that the Bible is holy and inspired Word of the Almighty God, then you should listen to the whole thing, and it's definitely not up to you to pick and choose relevant pieces for yourself. 



Weston said:


> The Bible doesn't inspire people to do good things, because *people already do good things.*



Not really.

What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

I just noticed he is offline, so I will continue without him.

Lets start off:

If God is omniscient then he can see into the future and past, and see his future actions.
If God is omnipotent then he can do anything he wants e.g. water into wine.
However if God is both then he can see his future actions and these actions must be true.
If these actions are true, then when time comes that God must take this action he must take the action he has foreseen or he is not omniscient, but If he must take that action that would not make him omnipotent, for he cannot do what he pleases. Yet if he can take another action than the one he foresaw, he is omnipotent but not omniscient. Therefore, why call him God if he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?


 
I agree, morals, ethics, and many other things are defined by society. If you look back the Greeks used to think that the purist form of love was between two men and that love between a man and woman was a stepping stone to true love. Now look at Homosexuality in America today. Totally different.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 28, 2011)

Chapuunka said:


> What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKxLb4Lx6A0#t=3m50s

This is a great response to where atheists get their morals.

(imma reply to zmarkcuber's paste of St. Thomas Aquinas's writing in little while. Just wanted to get this link out).


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Well there is a very closed minded idea, as I would argue that people who twist the bible inspire people to do bad things. Also in terms of morals in Christianity those are obviously derived from the 10 commandments are they not?


The morals of Christianity are not exclusive to Christianity. It's not Christianity, the 10 commandments, or the Bible that make people do good things.




Chapuunka said:


> They're doinitwrong. If you say you believe that the Bible is holy and inspired Word of the Almighty God, then you should listen to the whole thing, and it's definitely not up to you to pick and choose relevant pieces for yourself.


I'm confused.
Are trying to tell me to do this...?
I'm not saying that I do this, or people should do this. I'm just saying that most Christians do this. Whether or not this is true to Christianity is irrelevant to my point.




Chapuunka said:


> Not really.
> 
> What is even meant by "good"? How do you define morals? Historically, the definition has come through religion, but if you're rejecting that, then is there an objective moral standard? If not, is it up to each person to decide for themselves what is "good"? If so, what if someone decides that it is very good (for them) to slam doors into people's faces, is that still okay?


Objective morality has been defined by evolution.
Morals do NOT come from religion. Are you saying there were no morals before the first religion?


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> I'm confused.
> Are trying to tell me to do this...?
> I'm not saying that I do this, or people should do this. I'm just saying that most Christians do this. Whether or not this is true to Christianity is irrelevant to my point.


 
I meant "you" in a general sense. I was just clarifying, as you probably already know, that "Christians" who trim the Bible to their beliefs are wrong.



Weston said:


> Are you saying there were no morals before the first religion?


 
We disagree on that time anyway, so it's not really relevant to the current discussion.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> The morals of Christianity are not exclusive to Christianity. It's not Christianity, the 10 commandments, or the Bible that make people do good things.


 
Exactly, but you asked where the morals of Christianity came from and I gave you an answer. Also please stop changing the subject every post it is becoming annoying.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

EnterPseudonym said:


> I just noticed he is offline, so I will continue without him.
> 
> Lets start off:
> 
> ...



This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.



> If God is omniscient then he can see into the future and past, and see his future actions.



God is outside of time. He does not abide to time, since He created it. He doesnt see his future actions in the way we do. I believe Einstein proved that the passage of time is merely an illusion...?

So... yes, the "God" you are describing, which abides to time, makes no sense.

and to reply to all the things people have said, since theres so many people against me on here (my own fault heh heh) is going to take a little bit of time... and Im really tired right now, so I will reply again in the morning. dont have TOO much fun without me.


----------



## Weston (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Exactly, but you asked where the morals of Christianity came from and I gave you an answer. Also please stop changing the subject every post it is becoming annoying.


I'm not changing the topic. You're just misinterpreting what I am saying so I am saying it in different ways.
What I was saying was that the Bible tells you to make certain exceptions to the 10 commandments. Many people don't follow these exceptions because they realize that these exceptions are morally wrong. They realize that they should do this because they have their own morality.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.


 
How convenient. Since you're defending something that's essentially made up, you can just change whatever the proper understanding of it is to suit whatever you need to argue.

That's adorable.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Weston said:


> I'm not changing the topic. You're just misinterpreting what I am saying so I am saying it in different ways.
> What I was saying was that the Bible tells you to make certain exceptions to the 10 commandments. Many people don't follow these exceptions because they realize that these exceptions are morally wrong. They realize that they should do this because they have their own morality.


I have to say that the subject has strayed from the original argument. But onto the the argument at hand. The exceptions you are talking about are subjective and are dependent on the situations which aren't as common as you may claim.


----------



## Jorghi (Nov 28, 2011)

Nobody knows God's concepts, and 'nobody' knows if God is real. Obviously nobody is in quotes. 
If you are using science to disprove religion, you are only doing to based on human observation of the natural world. For that is what science is. 

We don't even know what we know. We are just classifying it based on its observable characterists by technology and humans.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 28, 2011)

The question that Christians have to ask themselves is what makes them choose which part(s) of the bible they follow and which they don't. ZamHalen, you said that Christian morals are based off the 10 commandments, but what makes you choose that passage over any other? What about the parts in the bible that endorse slavery? Or the parts that command you to stone an insubordinate son to death at the edge of town? Or the part that commands you to marry the woman that you rape? It's all part of the same book and it's all commanded by the same God, so what makes one part more worthy than the others? Unless your God has changed his mind, which would contradict how he is defined by most Christians (Omniscient)

The reason you choose some over the others is that you know that some are bad. You know that owning another human as property is wrong, and always has been regardless of what your God may have decreed (I'd like to see anyone try and argue otherwise). This is because you decide your own morality. It's obviously not God given otherwise we'd still all be out there raping and slashing open the pregnant wombs of our enemies because 'God sed so lol'

Take some credit for being a moral human being. Be proud of it.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> This is stemming from a misunderstanding of the concept of God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If he exists outside of time, then you're trying to convince someone of something they can't comprehend. Like wise if they can't understand it, then It's highly unlikely you can comprehend it.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

Muesli said:


> The question that Christians have to ask themselves is what makes them choose which part(s) of the bible they follow and which they don't. ZamHalen, you said that Christian morals are based off the 10 commandments, but what makes you choose that passage over any other? What about the parts in the bible that endorse slavery? Or the parts that command you to stone an insubordinate son to death at the edge of town? Or the part that commands you to marry the woman that you rape? It's all part of the same book and it's all commanded by the same God, so what makes one part more worthy than the others? Unless your God has changed his mind, which would contradict how he is defined by most Christians (Omniscient)
> 
> The reason you choose some over the others is that you know that some are bad. You know that owning another human as property is wrong, and always has been regardless of what your God may have decreed (I'd like to see anyone try and argue otherwise). This is because you decide your own morality. It's obviously not God given otherwise we'd still all be out there raping and slashing open the pregnant wombs of our enemies because 'God sed so lol'
> 
> Take some credit for being a moral human being. Be proud of it.


 
Well for one the bible is subject to interpretation.An atheist such as yourself and others will read the bible in an entirely literal sense because you want to, one group of Christians may see it in a literal sense also, while another group may look at it in terms of metaphor and that's where it gets hard for me to argue, as I mostly know my own beliefs and very little of others. e.g. I know what the basics of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions including other christian denominations.But as I don't practice any of those I can't speak for their beliefs.
BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.


 
You can't be serious... Think about what the woman is going through! I actually feel a bit sick now, so much for your apparently superior morality.

I seriously cannot take you or any of your points seriously now after that display of an utter lack of empathy.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 28, 2011)

Zam what are you talking about? He's referencing parts of the bible that are interpreted to mean that raping a virgin is akin to marrying them. How did you interpret it? 

*I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here*


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.


 
What the actual frak are you even saying? Have you considered the ramifications of that? Have you no decency?

I can't take you seriously as a debater or as a person anymore.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 28, 2011)

Please read the book of Romans. I'll provide some direction later, for now I am tired.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 28, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> did anybody even read this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I was hoping there was more to this text than what Weston said, but he was right. This is mostly, "we don't know so it must be god". I think we can both agree that this is not a good reason to believe in a god as throughout history, an extremely large number of natural events that were attributed to a god have been proven not to be.

Also, I linked to this video before, but it actually goes beyond what I meant it to be for and goes into what I've brought up before about how there are quite a few different religions.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 28, 2011)

Excellent video Patrick, thanks for sharing. That poor caller actually thought he was prepared to defend himself against a clearly superior opponent.


----------



## Cool Frog (Nov 28, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> What the actual frak are you even saying? Have you considered the ramifications of that? Have you no decency?
> 
> I can't take you seriously as a debater or as a person anymore.


 



Muesli said:


> You can't be serious... Think about what the woman is going through! I actually feel a bit sick now, so much for your apparently superior morality.
> 
> I seriously cannot take you or any of your points seriously now after that display of an utter lack of empathy.


Who are you to make a criteria for empathy.


While I can disagree with his viewpoints on this matter, It shouldn't be an excuse to become closeminded about the other points that he brings up. Just because a person believes one thing about a unrelated subject (for the most part) doesn't make his previous, or future points on different topics useless. That should be determined on related evidence and arguments.

A bit curious as to what he would say on the "teapot in between earth and mars".


-Goodnight for now *tips hat and walks away*


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 28, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> Who are you to make a criteria for empathy.
> 
> 
> While I can disagree with his viewpoints on this matter, It shouldn't be an excuse to become closeminded about the other points that he brings up. Just because a person believes one thing about a unrelated subject (for the most part) doesn't make his previous, or future points on different topics useless. That should be determined on related evidence and arguments.
> ...


 
I don't need an excuse to disregard the other arguments he brings up, seeing as he has failed to present a single viable one.

*walks away from the explosion, doesn't look back*


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 28, 2011)

BTW guys I was joking about the rape thing but got preoccupied.

Also can someone give me the verse we're referring to?


----------



## Escher (Nov 28, 2011)

Just so people know, the marry/rape law was written for a culture where if a woman was raped (or 'allowed' herself to be), she would be cast out as unclean and she would most likely starve to death and die on the streets. Having to marry the woman both dis-incentivised rapists and gave women some protection if they were raped.

See, the problem with the Bible is that it's very easy to take out of context. 'The Word of God' does not mean a collection of universalised laws, like so many people take it to be.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Nov 28, 2011)

This seems like a fun topic to comment on. I don't have time to make a full comment right now, but maybe some other time, I'll totally comment on this. I hope my views on Christianity helps people understand Christianity a little bit better.

But let me at least get this out: I am a Christian. I belong to the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 28, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> What the actual frak are you even saying? Have you considered the ramifications of that? Have you no decency?
> 
> I can't take you seriously as a debater or as a person anymore.


 
You don't seem to realise that it's the woman's fault in the first place.


----------



## shelley (Nov 28, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> BTW guys I was joking about the rape thing but got preoccupied.
> 
> Also can someone give me the verse we're referring to?


 
I like how you act like you've never seen it before. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

And yes, it was written for a culture very different from ours. Most of the Bible was written in a very different time, which means it's that much more irrelevant as a reference for our morals today.

Where do morals come from? Historically, a lot of it has been from religion, but that's just because religion is an easy way to impart morals to a population that isn't educated or literate. Where did religion come from? People. Say what you want about the Bible being the divine word of God, but humans wrote the Bible and all other holy works that dictate the morals of various religions. What does this mean? It means we made up our own morality: humans are inherently capable of morality without religion. Surely we've realized that by the 21st century.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2011)

shelley said:


> And yes, it was written for a culture very different from ours. Most of the Bible was written in a very different time, which means it's that much more irrelevant as a reference for our morals today.


 
So, morals are subjective then?


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 28, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> So, morals are subjective then?


...of course morals are subjective.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 28, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> I was hoping there was more to this text than what Weston said, but he was right. This is mostly, "we don't know so it must be god". I think we can both agree that this is not a good reason to believe in a god as throughout history, an extremely large number of natural events that were attributed to a god have been proven not to be.
> 
> Also, I linked to this video before, but it actually goes beyond what I meant it to be for and goes into what I've brought up before about how there are quite a few different religions.



sorry I forgot the link, Patrick... I posted it before. there is more to that text than what I copied and pasted. scroll down to article three, unless you want to read everything else. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

what else could it be? a thing? a self existent thing?  even if it is a self existent thing, or an energy, you should understand that THIS thing is what people worship and consider to be "God". (except some people who worship God have an idea of Him as being this man with a big long beard sitting in a cloud watching everybody on earth. *cough cough*)

what natural events which were attributed to God were proven not to be? can you give an example? say the parting of the red sea, they say it was a large wind. thats a big possibility, but what is the cause of that wind? ultimately everything goes back to cause. 

unless you wanna deny that anything needs a cause. in that case, Im very afraid of turning on the faucet... I wonder what will come out. gee, that would be an interesting life...

the universe needs an ultimate cause. an uncaused cause. an unmoved mover. otherwise it could not be here. you get what I mean? maybe god was caused by a higher god, which was in turn caused by a higher god, et cetera. this could go on forever. its a logical and philosophical impossibility. it has to stop somewhere. just like this thread needs a cause for existence, or else it wouldnt be here. (ok maybe thats a bad analogy).

I didnt watch the video, because I dont have time at the moment, though I will watch it later.

Oh, and I give the most civilized, the most polite, and ultimately the most CONVINCING atheist award to Patrick Jameson!  (if my opinion even means anything anymore...) haha

sorry for misquoting you. I wasnt thinking. I edited it though. 

and its... zmikecuber... not zmarkcuber. hehe 

any atheist interested in playing theist, and I will play atheist? heh heh.. Ive actually done that with friends before. its fun. xD

finally, I dont know how much I can post on this thread anymore. I kindof feel like we're going in circles at this point...


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> ...of course morals are subjective.


 
If morals are subjective, who decides what they are?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 28, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> If morals are subjective, who decides what they are?



Did you watch that video?
People decide their own morals... that should be obvious... some people think it's immoral to download music without paying for it... others have no problem with that. If there was a fixed set of morals there woudn't be such diversity. Sometimes moral groups are dictated by the society we are raised in... usually the laws are based off of these (note, laws in different countries are different). The few big ones, like you shouldn't kill people, you shouldn't hurt children... are kinda evolutionarily driven... if you kill your children, you're going to have a hard time passing your genes on. Some based on how you see society should work... if I don't steal from people, maybe they wont steal from me....


----------



## onlyleftname (Nov 28, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> Sorry, I'm new here, I wasn't aware.


 
You're new to the internet?


----------



## AgentKuo (Nov 28, 2011)

Godmill pretty much covered it, but I'm going to give my own personal response as well.


JonnyWhoopes said:


> If morals are subjective, who decides what they are?


They're subjective because a single person doesn't decide what they are. It's usually a culture as a whole that comes up with a system of morals. (regardless, individuals within this culture will still probably differ in some of their morals.) There is not one set of morals that every culture (or every person) will agree with, because what we believe to be right or wrong is dependent on our own beliefs and upbringing.

TheraminTrees makes some excellent points about morals in his video series about the very subject:
(here is the first video in the series.) 
[youtube]T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=relmfu[/youtube]


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 29, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> sorry I forgot the link, Patrick... I posted it before. there is more to that text than what I copied and pasted. scroll down to article three, unless you want to read everything else. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm



I'll read that in a bit. To be honest everything written in that style is quite the mouthful to read.



zmikecuber said:


> what else could it be? a thing? a self existent thing?  even if it is a self existent thing, or an energy, you should understand that THIS thing is what people worship and consider to be "God". (except some people who worship God have an idea of Him as being this man with a big long beard sitting in a cloud watching everybody on earth. *cough cough*)
> 
> what natural events which were attributed to God were proven not to be? can you give an example? say the parting of the red sea, they say it was a large wind. thats a big possibility, but what is the cause of that wind? ultimately everything goes back to cause.



Lightning, thunder, rain, the sun rising and setting, earthquakes; I could go on and on. Many religions have had gods whom the followers believe controlled each of these events I listed. All of them can be explained without a need for anything supernatural.

Also, this is a very good question, "what else could it be?". This is a flawed reason to believe that god exists. We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe. Two, over time, more and more of what was once attributed to a god has been proven to be of natural causes, not supernatural.

As for an initial cause, we basically just need to figure how how the matter initially got here. Basically everything from the creation of matter to present can be explained without supernatural involvement. But scientists are working on it. Maybe we'll figure it out, maybe we won't. But we can't just say, "god did it," as there's no tangible evidence that a god was actually involved. By saying, "god did it," it seems as though we are giving up in our search for the truth.

And hey, maybe your god will show up and prove us wrong once he realizes that it would not be against free will to actually tell us he exists. Free will exists in this context for us to decide subjective matters, not objective. Either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. There's nothing subjective about it.



zmikecuber said:


> Oh, and I give the most civilized, the most polite, and ultimately the most CONVINCING atheist award to Patrick Jameson!  (if my opinion even means anything anymore...) haha


----------



## anders (Nov 29, 2011)

My view on religion is that it is, or at least has been, evolutionary advantageous to belive in a god or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion).


----------



## Nestor (Nov 29, 2011)

anders said:


> My view on religion is that it is, or at least has been, evolutionary advantageous to belive in a god or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion).


 
Just as body hair once was.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 29, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Lightning, thunder, rain, the sun rising and setting, earthquakes; I could go on and on. Many religions have had gods whom the followers believe controlled each of these events I listed. All of them can be explained without a need for anything supernatural.
> 
> Also, this is a very good question, "what else could it be?". This is a flawed reason to believe that god exists. We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe. Two, over time, more and more of what was once attributed to a god has been proven to be of natural causes, not supernatural.
> 
> ...



Im not saying that I believe this, but proving that something has a "natural cause" does not disprove God, or any "gods". 

For example Zeus. (I think I've gone into this before..) People thought he threw lightning out of the sky, but now we know the real reason for lightning. Does this disprove Zeus? Of course not. If Zeus was really God, and was almighty, he could use natural means to do what he wanted.



> We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe.



well I think we can to some extent stick "god did it". However, that doesnt make us undesired to find further scientific understanding of the universe. (at least definitely not for me personally. I still love watching NOVA ) But, HOW did he do it? thats the question that I would love to know. because things cant simply be their own cause, can they?

How can we find out scientifically if at one point scientific laws did not exist? Does science have a beginning? 

Perhaps the cause for the universe wasnt god. maybe it was a type of mathematical function.. but if that is the case, then this mathematical function must be eternal. sounds a bit more like god now, doesnt it? (anything you put here for the first cause can be defined as God philosophically. or impossible.) and what caused this scientific mathematical function? can we ever know? 

I think the answer is no. we cant really comprehend how the universe was caused into existence. (I might be wrong!!). much like Thomas Aquinas says we cant comprehend what God IS, but we can comprehend what He's not, and then draw conclusions as to what He must be.

another thing to remember is that if all this is true, then God is more of a being than a person. If you know what I mean, more defined as "the uncaused cause" rather than "the man in the sky".



> I'll read that in a bit. To be honest everything written in that style is quite the mouthful to read.



there I agree with you completely.  imagine if it was the original version in latin...  I would love to translate that sometime... but even if you disagree with him, I find it amazing how much he says CLEARLY in such few words. such as his definition of motion being simply the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.



> By saying, "god did it," it seems as though we are giving up in our search for the truth.



not really. I think people believe we're finding the truth by saying that, but yeah. religion does not discourage science or encourage blind belief in God. many famous scientists have been Catholic or religious people, or have believed in God. apparently their religion did not discourage them from their scientific discoveries.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 29, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ...I think we can to some extent stick "god did it". However, that doesnt make us undesired to find further scientific understanding of the universe.... religion does not discourage science or encourage blind belief in God....



Well I'm afraid there is an easy way of finding out. There was a time that the Church ruled the western world, which we call the dark ages. It lasted many hundred of years in which time the development of human knowledge pretty much stopped dead. There was some progress in the arts/crafts and agriculture but that was it. What the church did was take the work of Aristotle (who for his sins tried too hard to catagorise everything) and realised with some chopping and changing they could have a seemingly complete system for understanding the physical world. And that was it! No more thinking needed to be done, we had all the answers. It wasn't until the age of enlightment that people started developing new knowledge inspite of (and so punished by) the church. The current method of aquiring and testing knowledge (the scientific method) deliberatly doesn't presuppose there is a god... the motivations of the people doing the work are entirely personal (may be atheistic, could be theistic and 'trying to understand god'), and has no influence on the system.




zmikecuber said:


> Does science have a beginning?


 Yes of course, Science isn't a physical thing, it's a method for doing something, so it started with Humans testing/exploring ideas and developing an understanding of the natural world.



zmikecuber said:


> How can we find out scientifically if at one point scientific laws did not exist?


 By scientific laws, I pressume you mean natural laws. Then yes, it's well known that the closer you get to the beginning of the big bang the more the laws of the current universe break down.

Also I should point out that there is a lot of talk of before the big bang... but that isn't an obvious statement to make. Remember time itself started at the big bang. It may be possible that the big bang was always starting and didn't have an actual origin.



zmikecuber said:


> If Zeus was really God, and was almighty, he could use natural means to do what he wanted.



And if every 'act of god' is manifest though natural means, then how can it be distiguished from just natural means, it kinda breaks down any pretense of a logical reason for the existance of a god.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 29, 2011)

> Also I should point out that there is a lot of talk of before the big bang... but that isn't an obvious statement to make. Remember time itself started at the big bang. It may be possible that the big bang was always starting and didn't have an actual origin.



look up "actual infinite". you are essentially here denying a first cause of the universe, and affirming the existence of an "actual infinite", which is impossible. perhaps the big bang started itself? but there MUST be a beginning, otherwise... there is no beginning, and thus could be no middle, etc. etc. how can there be anything if there is no beginning? once again, look up "actual infinite".



> Well I'm afraid there is an easy way of finding out. There was a time that the Church ruled the western world, which we call the dark ages. It lasted many hundred of years in which time the development of human knowledge pretty much stopped dead. There was some progress in the arts/crafts and agriculture but that was it. What the church did was take the work of Aristotle (who for his sins tried too hard to catagorise everything) and realised with some chopping and changing they could have a seemingly complete system for understanding the physical world. And that was it! No more thinking needed to be done, we had all the answers.



not saying I disagree, but can you provide some references?



> the motivations of the people doing the work are entirely personal (may be atheistic, could be theistic and 'trying to understand god'), and has no influence on the system.



agreed.  where did I say otherwise...? 



> And if every 'act of god' is manifest though natural means, then how can it be distiguished from just natural means, it kinda breaks down any pretense of a logical reason for the existance of a god.



I never said *every* act of god is manifest through natural means. where did I say that? please dont take me out of context.  



> By scientific laws, I pressume you mean natural laws. Then yes, it's well known that the closer you get to the beginning of the big bang the more the laws of the current universe break down.



how far do they break down? do they break down to no laws whatsoever?

where does the ability to exist come from?

is there a first cause to the universe? If so, why isn't God a logical answer to assume could be very well correct, unless we find otherwise?

either God exists or He doesnt. either its true or false. like patrick said, theres nothing subjective about it.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 29, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> look up "actual infinite".


ok, will do.



zmikecuber said:


> not saying I disagree, but can you provide some references?


Not at the moment... though a quick looks leads me to think I may have generalised a bit too heavily, a few causes of the lack of human development were that they was a hellava lot of wars, and things like the black death. Though I'm sure the aristatilian tradition was cemented in the church, and that's why Gallileo's research which contradicted it went down so badly.



zmikecuber said:


> agreed.  where did I say otherwise...?


oh, I guess I'm not arguing then 



zmikecuber said:


> I never said *every* act of god is manifest through natural means.


Okie dokie, another mistake on my part.



zmikecuber said:


> how far do they break down?


Quite a lot, most of the laws of physics just go completely out of the window with the crazy amounts of concentrated energy the further into the big bang you go.
[edit] ok, looked it up, the Plank Epoch when the time was 0 to 10^-43 seconds is when everything was crazy and all our current physics goes out the window. Though I guess a unified Relativity/Quantum Mech theory would certainly help, but that's some way off.



zmikecuber said:


> where does the ability to exist come from? is there a first cause to the universe? If so, why isn't God a logical answer to assume could be very well correct, unless we find otherwise?


Because a lack of knowledge of something, is not the same as a reason to think another thing must be the case. It's a nonsequitor.

EDIT:


zmikecuber said:


> you are essentially here denying a first cause of the universe, and affirming the existence of an "actual infinite", which is impossible.....
> .....this mathematical function must be eternal. sounds a bit more like god now, doesnt it?


So something that is infinite is impossible.... but you're totally happy with the idea that god is 'eternal'?


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 29, 2011)

about the galileo case... I will reply to that later. there was error on certain cardinals I believe, but I have heard that the reason that the Church did not want Galileo preaching his beliefs as fact was because it would have caused great disturbance to the people, and certain parts of Galileo's discoveries had not been proved yet. (please dont quote me on this just yet, like I said, I will reply later. gonna read up a little bit first.. )



Godmil said:


> Because a lack of knowledge of something, is not the same as a reason to think another thing must be the case. It's a nonsequitor.



how is it a non sequitor? (sorry if I dont understand your point. sometimes I really do believe I am dumb. oh and I see latin <3) Is God a possibility for the first cause? we have found no other possibilities for the first cause, and I dont believe we will. why can't we assume that God is the only possibility with our present knowledge?

what about the theory of evolution? we believe that to be true, although I dont think we have completely proved it...? (correct me if Im wrong here)

ok, lets assume for the sake of argument that theres a first cause.

1. There is a first cause.
2. We do not know *what* this first cause is. (though I tend to disagree here. using logic and philosophy it can be proved that the only thing that could be a first cause is a free agent. I will post on that later.. I need to discuss this with one of my philosopher atheist aruguer friends. .)
3. The concept of God does work if placed as the first cause.
4. Therefore (with our present knowledge) God is the only possibility for the first cause at this point in time. (Im not asking you to say that God IS the first cause, but right now it's the only possibility we have)

can we agree on this?

oh and dont worry about taking some things I said wrong... I could have been more clear, and I've already done the same thing on this thread. heh heh


----------



## Cube-Fu (Nov 29, 2011)

Any scientist saying that the universe started with a big-bang, might as well be saying it started with God, as there is no concrete definition for either, that can be proved. Any devout religion follower, should not ignore the scientific side of things, as the world very much exists here and now, and has certain laws which can describe it. For the scientific, I say, studying God, is like trying to study the dark, turning on the light to see by. And to the religious, if God created all things real and moral alike, then He, is responsible for all things, even atheists, so be gentle. Personally, I feel I'm extremely religious, as I believe God to be the founder of all things and ever present in everything and between; I also study survival skills, medicines, physics and the martial arts. I don't believe in an after-life, or the bible, but I do believe that Jesus was real, and that science will never be able to map and understand everything. And a good thing too, as it's no fun without the mystery; in other words, trust in God, to do whatever he deems fit, and don't be upset when it's time to go, as you were lucky enough to have a shot at it. In the name of the Fire, the Water and the bleedin' great big Stick.
Our Mum


----------



## Muesli (Nov 29, 2011)

As I see it, the universe is a Web Browser, and God is one of those stupid yahoo search-bar toolbars.

It's man made, it's not needed, it's not useful and it's not meant to be there. They're often also pushed on you when you're not (computer) savvy enough to know what you're accepting However, some people might want it there.

Except the fact that there's solid evidence for the toolbars...




EDIT

Also,


Cube-Fu said:


> Any scientist saying that the universe started with a big-bang, might as well be saying it started with God,



No.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 29, 2011)

I'm curious how many atheists have done solid research into evidences for God. And I'm not talking research from the perspective of atheism. Just research.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 29, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm curious how many atheists have done solid research into evidences for God. And I'm not talking research from the perspective of atheism. Just research.


 
As I see it an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnijaffacake God should be pretty easy to come across. Especially if he blames us for not being convinced by him and sends us to hell.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> As I see it an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnijaffacake God should be pretty easy to come across. Especially if he blames us for not being convinced by him and sends us to hell.


 
My apologies to whomever believes in that being, that sounds terrible. I'm glad the Bible doesn't describe a God like that.

Secondly, you didn't answer my question. You simply redirected it by trying to make me look foolish. That doesn't sound very objective to me. In all honesty, I'm just curious. How many atheist have objectively searched out evidences for the opposing side of the argument. If you don't legitimately (legit being the key word here) consider the opposing arguments, there is no objectivity in any decision.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 29, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I didn't ask if any of you have read the Bible. I asked if any of you have legitimately researched evidences for God.


 
As far as I can tell, when your entire system is based off one book those two things are pretty much equivalent. Tell me, what would one do to "legitimately" research this?

I'm pretty much waiting for more of this thread's regulars to get back in here, since they probably have a good rebuttal for you. I'm just going to play along with what you're saying.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 29, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> As far as I can tell, when your entire system is based off one book those two things are pretty much equivalent. Tell me, what would one do to "legitimately" research this?
> 
> I'm pretty much waiting for more of this thread's regulars to get back in here, since they probably have a good rebuttal for you. I'm just going to play along with what you're saying.


 
Well I have two answers here, and then I have to leave for classes.

First, the Christian's system of worship and lifestyle is based off of the Bible, but the existence of God is not based off of the Bible. If that was the case, before the Bible was written and compiled we would have no way to acknowledge God's existence. To assume that researching the existence of God and researching the Bible are the same thing is misinformed.

Secondly, to research the existence of God you could read at least some of the volumes of books on the subject. That would be a good start, don't you think? To research the legitimacy of the Bible, you could do the same thing. Contrary to what is popularly presented, there is clash in the intelectual world on both those subjects.

::EDIT:: Also, here's a super-nutshelled version of what I mean by legitimate. I mean that you go into the research with the view that we don't know if there is or isn't a God. That should always be the starting point for both sides of the argument. You are claiming absolute knowledge on the subject as soon as you say He does or doesn't exist, and what's the point of research if you already know the answer, right?


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 29, 2011)

How would reading volumes of books on the subject qualify as legitimate research? All the books are going to do is push whatever view the author happens to have while ignoring valid points. Using the word "research" would indicate that some attempt at obtaining evidence of existence is being made.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 29, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> My apologies to whomever believes in that being, that sounds terrible. I'm glad the Bible doesn't describe a God like that.
> 
> Secondly, you didn't answer my question. You simply redirected it by trying to make me look foolish. That doesn't sound very objective to me. In all honesty, I'm just curious. How many atheist have objectively searched out evidences for the opposing side of the argument. If you don't legitimately (legit being the key word here) consider the opposing arguments, there is no objectivity in any decision.


 
There's no objectivity in any decision. But that's besides the point.

The point I made wasn't meant to show you to be foolish (although it seems it did). I could have been clearer, but you asked me if I had done any thorough research into whether a God exists or not. All I did was counter argue that, if God is as great and as glorious as you say he is, surely he should be apparent in all of 'his creation'? 

If he really is as all loving and merciful as he is portrayed then he must want me to be saved. At the moment I'm damned because he's apparently too elusive for me and every other non-Christian on the planet to spot.

And as for Hell, what happens to me after I'm dead then? If you're going to ascend to heaven for an eternity of ass-kissing then what happens to me?





atmac0 said:


> The bible is proof enough that god exists. How could a single book bring so many people together in harmony? It has to be given by god, or otherwise it would not have that kind of power. Man used to be in disarray, but because of Christianity the world is what it is today.
> 
> No, you should not need proof that god exists. He just does. If you don't accept it your going to hell.


 
trolololololooololololol


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 29, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> How would reading volumes of books on the subject qualify as legitimate research? All the books are going to do is push whatever view the author happens to have while ignoring valid points. Using the word "research" would indicate that some attempt at obtaining evidence of existence is being made.


 
I didn't say read volumes of books, I said that reading a few would be a good place to start. Also, you'd be surprised at how often Biblical scholars and apologists do NOT ignore valid points. You're making assumptions without having read any of the books you so readily bash. Also, if you're going to play a semantics game with the word research, how about I simply rephrase it as, attempt to gain knowledge. Does that satisfy you?

Some books I would suggest are: Mere Christianity, He is There and He is Not Silent, Beyond Opinion, Darwin's Black Box, and a few others that if you're interested you can ask about. I have a feeling however that you have no inclination to even consider the opposing arguments. If that is the case, there's no point in any further discussion.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 29, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I didn't say read volumes of books, I said that reading a few would be a good place to start. Also, you'd be surprised at how often Biblical scholars and apologists do NOT ignore valid points. You're making assumptions without having read any of the books you so readily bash. Also, if you're going to play a semantics game with the word research, how about I simply rephrase it as, attempt to gain knowledge. Does that satisfy you?
> 
> Some books I would suggest are: Mere Christianity, He is There and He is Not Silent, Beyond Opinion, Darwin's Black Box, and a few others that if you're interested you can ask about. I have a feeling however that you have no inclination to even consider the opposing arguments. If that is the case, there's no point in any further discussion.


 
Or you could save us all the time and the money and just present the arguments here? If God is so obvious he should be possible to prove on a website. I don't have the time to waste on these charlatans. I have CoD to play.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 29, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Or you could save us all the time and the money and just present the arguments here? If God is so obvious he should be possible to prove on a website. I don't have the time to waste on these charlatans. I have CoD to play.


 
This. (EDIT: This, except I have Skyrim to play.)



atmac0 said:


> I only try to spread the word of god to the misinformed younger generation.


 
...


----------



## Godmil (Nov 29, 2011)

You think?

Btw hahaha, someone recommended reading Darwins BlackBox! Hahahaha!
I may have to check out those other titles to see if they're as full of fallacies and intellectually dishonest material.


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 29, 2011)

> So something that is infinite is impossible.... but you're totally happy with the idea that god is 'eternal'?



No, an actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite is a infinite temporal regress of events which is bound to time. a causes b causes c causes d causes e causes et cetera on to infinity. That's what is impossible. the whole idea of one thing causing another into existence, and changing and causing another into existence is bound to time.

The concept of God on the other hand is not bound to time. If God DID create the universe, and CREATE time, the only logical conclusion is that He is outside of time. (Im not changing the definition of God here...)

So yes... actual infinite bound to time. uncaused caused is not bound to time, since it created time. Thus the concept of God is not an actual infinite.

I ask Godmil and PatrickJameson... is there a first cause to the universe? an uncaused cause? from which all other causes come? (Im not saying that the cause is God, Im just asking IF this cause exists.)

Here is another argument, used in conjunction with Thomas Aquinas'. Please note I dont fully understand ALL of the terms used here.  it's quite a mouthful.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.
2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.
4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:
4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)
4.23 The Creator is changeless.
4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.25 The Creator is timeless.
4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)
4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)
4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

I know certain parts are going to be pointed out as "impossible", so I will make my responses to those points already.

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

This might seem like a jump from 4.11 to 4.12, but think... if the universe was caused into existence by a set of conditions... what caused these conditions? perhaps they were caused by other conditions, et cetera. we're back to the actual infinite. conditions causing conditions causing conditions, which is impossible. so we can conclude that conditions causing the universe (conditions meaning a natural cause to the universe) is an impossibility in and of itself.

So is there a first cause to the universe? If not, we come to an actual infinite of events, with no beginning, which has been proved impossible. If there is a first cause to the universe, it must have not been caused by anything else. It must BE cause in and of itself.

Another interesting point is that long before this argument was known to man that the Judeo Christian Islamic God claimed... "I am who am". A cause which IS cause.

I really just wanted to get my points out here... 

EDIT: Oh, and LOL at Kirjava and that other guy. hehehehe. that was really funny.  xD


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 29, 2011)

Please don't feed the trolls. And please don't create another account just to troll.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 30, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> *1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.*



I don't grant you this premise. Being "begun to exist" implies something 'ex nihilo', from nothing which is completely unfounded in reality.

Say, perhaps, I'm a carpenter. If I have a block of wood do I "create" a chair out of it? Was there nothing there and then a chair? No. There was a block of wood which I reformed into a chair shape. Essentially I have created it 'ex materia' (from already existing materials). For something to cause creation 'Ex Nihilo' has never been observed in the natural world, so why should we admit it to be possible to your God? We shouldn't. Your logic is unsound.

What you're essentially doing is pushing the question back one step. Who says that your God is timeless/eternal/etc etc etc? You do? Why? What reason have you got for that bald assertion? Why should I accept it?

Also, for your God to interact at all in the universe, it must become time*ful*, and thus your argument falls to pieces again. This is because your God cannot have started the universe (timelessness), yet still interact with it on a chonological timescale (tinefulness) 
That is unless you're prepared to declare yourself a Transtheist (essentially meaning God got the universe started then buggered off somewhere). In which case, there's no possible way we could discover the truth about this ethereal God, so there's no sense in discussing it.

Lastly, even if I admitted every single one of your premises and accepted your argument to be logical (which I don't) it supports every single God that can and could ever have been thought up. Even if a God is necessary, which one? The FSM? Yahweh? Allah? Take your pick, the argument works for all of them.

And if that logical reaming wasn't enough, Godmil has the scientific reasons for why your argument is bunk below.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 30, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.


 
Oh man, I can't believe I've been so stupid. I spent so much time thinking in the abstract I forgot to consider how the universe actually/physically works.
All these arguments circle around the fact that everything must be caused by something else. I'm afraid to tell you that isn't actually true. Quantum fluctuations/ virtual particles are real and appear in a vacuum without anything influencing them. Particles and anti-particles are constantly creating and destroying themselves. Producing predictable and observable effects. That's how nature works. An uncaused cause is actual measurable reality. So there is no contradiction of the big bang creating itself, and so no need to propose a supernatural element.

([email protected]#*ing years of studying cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, and I completely overlooked it :facepalm: )
EDIT: Unbelievable... I paused my regular podcast I was listening to to do this research - and it took forever to make sure I was correct cause I only half rememebred it from Uni, after I typed this up I went back to my podcast, and within 10mins they did a complete summary of everything I was trying to find out! Completely out of the blue (they hadn't mentioned anything like it in any of the previous 130 podcasts). That's Sceptics Guide to the Universe Ep. 159 20mins in, if anyone wants to have a listen.


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 30, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> big thing of text


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA


----------



## zmikecuber (Nov 30, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Oh man, I can't believe I've been so stupid. I spent so much time thinking in the abstract I forgot to consider how the universe actually/physically works.
> All these arguments circle around the fact that everything must be caused by something else. I'm afraid to tell you that isn't actually true. Quantum fluctuations/ virtual particles are real and appear in a vacuum without anything influencing them. Particles and anti-particles are constantly creating and destroying themselves. Producing predictable and observable effects. That's how nature works. An uncaused cause is actual measurable reality. So there is no contradiction of the big bang creating itself, and so no need to propose a supernatural element.
> 
> ([email protected]#*ing years of studying cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, and I completely overlooked it :facepalm: )
> EDIT: Unbelievable... I paused my regular podcast I was listening to to do this research - and it took forever to make sure I was correct cause I only half rememebred it from Uni, after I typed this up I went back to my podcast, and within 10mins they did a complete summary of everything I was trying to find out! Completely out of the blue (they hadn't mentioned anything like it in any of the previous 130 podcasts). That's Sceptics Guide to the Universe Ep. 159 20mins in, if anyone wants to have a listen.



How did the quantum physics, natural conditions, come to be? or have they always been? do quantum physics just pop into existence? after all quantum physics tells us that things do randomly pop into existence... oh wait...

do quantum physics apply to empty space or to nothing? theres a bit of a difference there. empty space is different than nothing. even though empty space is empty, it EXISTS in a sense.

so according to quantum physics, things just pop into existence and out of existence?

if quantum physics did not exist, could these particles jump in and out of existence?

quick question... does quantum physics contradict the first law of thermodynamics? oh and I did look up quantum physics...



> What you're essentially doing is pushing the question back one step. Who says that your God is timeless/eternal/etc etc etc? You do? Why? What reason have you got for that bald assertion? Why should I accept it?



Because without a first cause, the universe becomes a actual infinite, which is impossible. please dont jump to conclusions.




> Also, for your God to interact at all in the universe, it must become timeful, and thus your argument falls to pieces again. This is because your God cannot have started the universe (timelessness), yet still interact with it on a chonological timescale (tinefulness)
> That is unless you're prepared to declare yourself a Transtheist (essentially meaning God got the universe started then buggered off somewhere). In which case, there's no possible way we could discover the truth about this ethereal God, so there's no sense in discussing it.



Why must God become timeful? If he created time, thus being outside of time, it would make logical sense that He would have control over time, and would not need to abide by it.



> I don't grant you this premise. Being "begun to exist" implies something 'ex nihilo', from nothing which is completely unfounded in reality.
> 
> Say, perhaps, I'm a carpenter. If I have a block of wood do I "create" a chair out of it? Was there nothing there and then a chair? No. There was a block of wood which I reformed into a chair shape. Essentially I have created it 'ex materia' (from already existing materials). For something to cause creation 'Ex Nihilo' has never been observed in the natural world, so why should we admit it to be possible to your God? We shouldn't. Your logic is unsound.



so according to you, something cannot come to exist out of nothing? by that logic, if at one time there was nothing, there would still be nothing, and we wouldnt be here. 

has the ability to exist always existed? thats a contradiction. of course the ability to exist has always existed, because if it didnt, it could not exist, once again contradicting itself.

the ability to exist has always existed, since the ability to exist disregards time. much the same as concepts exist not in a material level, yet in a conceptual level. these concepts are not bound to time. how can they be if they are material?



> Lastly, even if I admitted every single one of your premises and accepted your argument to be logical (which I don't) it supports every single God that can and could ever have been thought up. Even if a God is necessary, which one? The FSM? Yahweh? Allah? Take your pick, the argument works for all of them.



thats the second step. what we are trying to do is to find out whether the universe was started by a free agent. 

about the flying spaghetti monster... I dont think we're talking about the same thing. at least, I dont think of God as a "flying spaghetti monster" unless of course the flying spaghetti monster is eternal and all good and self existent, and timeless, etc. etc. now it doesnt quite sound like a flying spaghetti monster anymore... 

define what you mean by flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 30, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> How did the quantum physics, natural conditions, come to be? or have they always been? do quantum physics just pop into existence? after all quantum physics tells us that things do randomly pop into existence... oh wait...


Quantum physics isn't a 'thing', it's a mathematical system that we created to 'perfectly' describe and predict events that happen on tiny scales. 



zmikecuber said:


> do quantum physics apply to empty space or to nothing? theres a bit of a difference there. empty space is different than nothing. even though empty space is empty, it EXISTS in a sense.



That is a very astute question, I'm impressed. While a vacuum could be described as nothing, in reality it exists within our universe and so comprises of space/time. Thing is that's as good a definition of actual nothing as we can possibly have you could say there is 'more nothing' outside the universe, but since we have no concept of what is 'outside the universe' and if that is even meaningful to say, we can't say there is or isn't anything more nothingnesslyness.



zmikecuber said:


> so according to quantum physics, things just pop into existence and out of existence?



Yes.



zmikecuber said:


> if quantum physics did not exist, could these particles jump in and out of existence?



Yes. Again, QM isn't a thing, it's a way of understanding the world around us. Virtual particles have been appearing and disappearing since the universe began.. we just didn't know and didn't have a way of understanding it (until around a hundred years ago). It's similar to how gravity existed before Newton worked out it's laws.



zmikecuber said:


> quick question... does quantum physics contradict the first law of thermodynamics? oh and I did look up quantum physics...


You mean, the concervation of energy? No, the net energy in a particle/anti-particle pair is zero.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 30, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Because without a first cause, the universe becomes a actual infinite, which is impossible. please dont jump to conclusions.



Then who caused your God? Is he an actual infinite? You just said that was impossible. Which is it?

You’re asking me to allow an exception, for no reason other than you affirming it, to a rule we both agree on. I have no reason to allow you this logical non sequitir.



zmikecuber said:


> Why must God become timeful? If he created time, thus being outside of time, it would make logical sense that He would have control over time, and would not need to abide by it.



You’re making stuff up now and taking advantage of the fact that all of this is impossible to disprove.

For example; This Rubik’s cube is Jesus reincarnate. The holy ghost is contained within its plastic.
Can you prove me wrong? No, of course not. The onus is on you to demonstrate that a timeless being can exist and your argument will become more than just fanciful thinking.



zmikecuber said:


> so according to you, something cannot come to exist out of nothing? by that logic, if at one time there was nothing, there would still be nothing, and we wouldnt be here.
> 
> has the ability to exist always existed? thats a contradiction. of course the ability to exist has always existed, because if it didnt, it could not exist, once again contradicting itself.
> 
> the ability to exist has always existed, since the ability to exist disregards time. much the same as concepts exist not in a material level, yet in a conceptual level. these concepts are not bound to time. how can they be if they are material?



I don’t know. Quite simply I don’t know. There’s no reason to suppose a timeless, spaceless creator exists just because we don’t know. That’s an argument from ignorance. Creation ex nihilo has never, *never*been demonstrated. Your argument swings on the fact that we don’t know, and that’s why it’s illogical.



zmikecuber said:


> thats the second step. what we are trying to do is to find out whether the universe was started by a free agent.
> 
> about the flying spaghetti monster... I dont think we're talking about the same thing. at least, I dont think of God as a "flying spaghetti monster" unless of course the flying spaghetti monster is eternal and all good and self existent, and timeless, etc. etc. now it doesnt quite sound like a flying spaghetti monster anymore...
> 
> define what you mean by flying spaghetti monster.



Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 30, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
> At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.



The other count is that, even given the special pleading about an uncaused first cause, there is no logical reason to believe that it was intelligent.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 1, 2011)

> Quantum physics isn't a 'thing', it's a mathematical system that we created to 'perfectly' describe and predict events that happen on tiny scales.



we created it? or did we discover it?



> Yes.



do they pop into and out of existence without a cause?




> Yes. Again, QM isn't a thing, it's a way of understanding the world around us. Virtual particles have been appearing and disappearing since the universe began.. we just didn't know and didn't have a way of understanding it (until around a hundred years ago). It's similar to how gravity existed before Newton worked out it's laws.



why did we ever bother to try to understand why these particles come into existence? Why not just say “well some things just pop into existence for no reason or cause, just like some things fall for no reason or cause”? The reason is because humans ALWAYS look for a cause if there is an effect. Its simple logic. It's in us. We found the cause for why an apple falls.

did we discover quantum mechanics or has it always existed as long as space and time exists?

obviously, we discovered it. Im saying if quantum mechanics did not exist, these particles would not jump in and out of existence. just like if gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground. can't we say that because QM exists, these particles can jump into existence? just like an apple falling to the ground falls, because of gravity, these particles jump in and out of existence beCAUSE of quantum physics. if you have an effect (the apple falling to the ground) you must have a cause (gravity) (although this cause isnt always quite so easy to see). It's quite simple logic actually. 

do you know that these particles jumping in and out of existence have no cause whatsoever? or is that still to be proved?

has quantum mechanics proved that there is no cause to these particles jumping in and out of existence? or has it proved that there is no cause, so far as we know, to prove why they jump in and out of existence? if there really is no cause for these particles to come into existence, how can you logically prove that?

Also, it would seem that in complete nothing, the absence of anything and everything (including space time), that nothing could come to exist, and that particles could not jump in and out of existence. This leads me to believe that there is something about space time which causes these particles to come in and out of existence, which we do not know about or understand yet.



> You mean, the concervation of energy? No, the net energy in a particle/anti-particle pair is zero.


but are these particles matter then? because matter and energy are the same things according to einstein. how can something with zero energy be matter? what happens to these particles if they have zero energy? how can these particles do anything like cause the universe into existence if they have no energy?

Causality is a basic logical principle. We live our lives by it. Why are you taking the time to reply to this? To show me the CAUSE of why my arguments are wrong. Cause is ultimately a why and how.



> Then who caused your God? Is he an actual infinite? You just said that was impossible. Which is it?



I've already refuted this. >.< an actual infinite is a series of events bound to time, which go on forever. the creator of time would not be bound to time, and thus could not be an actual infinite. you should look up the difference between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, and how they are associated with time. I've explained this multiple times. God is not an actual infinite. He is the ULTIMATE cause. The uncaused cause. Without a source of cause, there would be no cause.

Also, let's imagine me... Im sitting here existing. Ok cool. So but if an actual infinite IS possible, in order for ME to exist right now, an INFINITE amount of things need to happen before I can exist, which is impossible. Obviously I have existence. Where did I get existence from if the line goes on for actual infinity? how could I have existence if before I can exist an actual infinite amount of things have to happen?

Infinity is not an actual. It's a potential. Even numbers have a beginning, an origin, yet are potentially infinite.



> Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
> At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.



That's beside the point. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. I'm trying to prove to you that I'm right, and you guys are trying to prove I'm wrong. It's that simple. Who cares how I came to my beliefs? That's utterly beside the point. Right now, you guys are trying to prove me and my beliefs wrong. And like I said, I'm trying to prove them right. 



> The other count is that, even given the special pleading about an uncaused first cause, there is no logical reason to believe that it was intelligent.



If there is a first mover, it is either a movement from a natural set of conditions, or from a self existent being, a free agent. There are no other possibilities. Anything proposed can be categorized as one or the other. But ultimately a set of conditions causing itself is illogical, because it is a thing, and by a thing's very nature, it cannot cause itself. 

If this thing or set of conditions did cause itself (for some reason unknown to us), and is the first mover, once we start defining it and giving it properties, we get properties such as “self existent”, “self sustaining”, “created time”, “the most powerful thing in the universe”, etc. etc. (I'm not going to dictate this all, you guys can think on your own. )

Ok, so I really could sit here and go on and on all day. As Pascal says... "This is so long because I lack the time to make it shorter". I really feel like Im banging my head against the wall at this point, trying to get you guys to understand my points, and I would guess you guys feel the same way. Idk, maybe I am an *****... but as they say "Dont argue with an ***** because he will drag you down to his level of reasoning, and then beat you from experience" haha sorry, I just had to say that. 

And yeah, I have school that I need to be doing. You guys can think on your own, you dont need me to help you do that. I thought I did pretty well in my arguments considering you guys are all obviously much more intelligent in areas such as science and math.  

So yeah, I find at this point that nothing is happening, and I no longer need to keep doing this. I have alot of other stuff that I need to do... idk about you, but Im pretty busy with life and school. ;P 

anyway, I will keep thinking and asking questions and seeking the answers.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 1, 2011)

AGHHH! I lost my reply! :.( ok here we go again.



zmikecuber said:


> we created it? or did we discover it?


Doh! I'm afraid I accidently made this more confusing by using incorrect terms. Quantum Physics is a term to catagorise actual physical events that happen at the quantum level, Quantum Mechanics (or Quantum Theory) is our system of understanding these events.




zmikecuber said:


> do they pop into and out of existence without a cause?



Yes.



zmikecuber said:


> why did we ever bother to try to understand why these particles come into existence? Why not just say “well some things just pop into existence for no reason or cause, just like some things fall for no reason or cause”? The reason is because humans ALWAYS look for a cause if there is an effect. Its simple logic. It's in us. We found the cause for why an apple falls.



It's slightly the other way around, we had some effect that couldn't be explained, then when we understood virtual particles, we realised they were the cause of these effects. We don't need a cause for the virtual particles, as I'm sure I'll get to in a bitty.



zmikecuber said:


> did we discover quantum mechanics or has it always existed as long as space and time exists?



Again, this confusion is my fault. Quantum physics, that is to say, physical events that happen at the quantum level, are just natural events in the universe.



zmikecuber said:


> Im saying if quantum mechanics did not exist, these particles would not jump in and out of existence. just like if gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground.



That is a false analogy. Quantum Mechanics is analogous to the Theory of Gravity. So your argument would become "if the theory of gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground" which is false.
If you ment "Quantum Physics" then the answer to the question would be:
Yes, if there were no physical events at the quantum level then there would be no quantum events (I'm afraid that's a tautology).
Virtual particles are a quantum event.
Therefore, if there were no physical events at the quantum level then there would be no virtual particles.
However that doesn't tell us anything.



zmikecuber said:


> can't we say that... these particles jump in and out of existence beCAUSE of quantum physics. if you have an effect (the apple falling to the ground) you must have a cause (gravity). It's quite simple logic actually.



No. Gravity is a force which acts on physical objects. Quantum physics is a name to catagorise events that happen at the quantum level. There is no 'Quantum Force'.



zmikecuber said:


> do you know that these particles jumping in and out of existence have no cause whatsoever? or is that still to be proved?



Ok, this I'm afraid is where it could get complicated. Hiesenbergs Uncertainty Principle describes a fundamental aspect of the universe, a degree of uncertainty that is ALWAYS present in nature. This principle allows for the existance of virtual particles by the Energy/Time pair of 'conjugate variables'. More certainty of one of these things leads to less certainty in the other. When you start to think of smaller and smaller time periods (going down to the Plank Time (~10^-44s)) the time period becomes precise and so the energy level becomes uncertain, allowing for the existance of mass. And as it turns out this is what happens (and the effects can be measured). So it's not like they are created, but rather their spontanious creation is allowed for as a fundamental aspect of the universe.



zmikecuber said:


> This leads me to believe that there is something about space time which causes these particles to come in and out of existence, which we do not know about or understand yet.



It certainly seems reasonable to want that to be the case. Our view of the world is based on intuition about how things work, which comes from all our experiences. Every object I've ever seen that felt heavy, when I dropped it it fell to the ground. It is intuitive to me that heavy things fall to the ground. If I drop my cup, I'm extremely certain that it will fall to the ground because of all the experience I've had over my whole life. It is unintuitive to me and also unreasonable for me to expect my cup to fly in the air if I drop it. We however ONLY experience things on the macro level, our understanding of what is and isn't normal is limited to these kinds of experiences. If we somehow lived at the quantum level and the crazy **** that happens there was everyday to us, then it wouldn't be so hard to accept. But we don't, so it will always seem crazy.
We don't need to look for a cause, because the maths (which perfectly predict and explain quantum events) allows for their existence. There is no missing variable that is eluding us. It is just the way the universe works.



zmikecuber said:


> but are these particles matter then? because matter and energy are the same things according to einstein. how can something with zero energy be matter?


Ah no, you misread what I said. They have a *net* energy of Zero. One has positive energy the other has negative energy, the sum of the system containing the two is zero. So before they existed there was zero energy, then after they collide and cancel each other out there is zero energy.



zmikecuber said:


> Causality is a basic logical principle. We live our lives by it. Why are you taking the time to reply to this? To show me the CAUSE of why my arguments are wrong. Cause is ultimately a why and how.



You're right, we accept causality in order to live our lives and see the world in a logical way. However, causality only works at the scale in which we have experience. Any unusual quantum effects level themselves out by the time you get to anything we can have direct and immediate experience of. There is no reason to throw out causality in our day to day lives.

But (and this is the really big but), Your argument about cause and effect claims to be completely true not only of the whole universe, but even making claims outside the universe. Your system of causality DOES NOT apply to the whole universe, it doesn't even apply to the basic elements that make up the finger tips you'll use to reply to this post. Your initial premise, which makes assumption about the known universe, is flawed, so any attempt to expand this to thinking outside the universe is ridiculous.

The causal argument can only be entertained as a philisophical/logical argument, it can not be assumed to apply to the real world, and since your argument is intended to describe reality then it is fallacious.

<phew!>


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 1, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Again, QM isn't a thing


 
thing (noun)

That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 1, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> I've already refuted this. >.< an actual infinite is a series of events bound to time, which go on forever. the creator of time would not be bound to time, and thus could not be an actual infinite. you should look up the difference between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, and how they are associated with time. I've explained this multiple times. God is not an actual infinite. He is the ULTIMATE cause. The uncaused cause. Without a source of cause, there would be no cause.


 
No, you didn't refute this. What you did was invent a magical exception that has no grounds in reality. You haven't yet explained why I should take this assertion seriously.

I'm beginning to think we're going in circles here. You keep making this bald assertion and I keep refuting it, and we're getting nowhere.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 1, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> thing (noun)
> 
> That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.



Thing includes concepts? yeah I guess it should. ok physical thing.
Glad that was all you could criticise me on (though I'm aware that's tempting fate now).

I feel a little sorry for zmikecuber, it's gatta be hella difficult to fight an argument on two fronts. Someone really should try to help him out.



zmikecuber said:


> you guys are trying to prove me and my beliefs wrong. And like I said, I'm trying to prove them right.


Ooh, just noticed this.. I'm more concentrating on proving your argument wrong. I have no problem with you having an irrational/personal belief, but if you claim there is a rational/logical conclusion for it and that it relates to reality, then I think there are problems.

Darn just finshed reading your post, I'd mistakenly taken the last half to be just for Muesli. Yeah, it's been quite an exciting argument, and I've learned a lot, you've really pushed me to try harder than anyone else I've argued with. Also I wouldn't say anyone is more intelligent in any areas, just people can have a little more knowledge in some areas, but that's cool everyone can learn new knowledge. Anyway, just to be stuborn I'll do one more point then give my closing arguments to the jury.
Firstly, I don't think your last arugment about why a first cause must be intelligent holds any grounds.
Now finally:
I believe it has been demonstrated that within the realm of the known universe the premise that every cause must have a prior cause is false. And so on rational ground it must be conceeded that the entire argument is false. The only way to hold onto the conclusion is to conceed that it is done irrationaly. Which, like I said, I have no problem with. Just as long as you accept that there isn't a rational reason to get to the conclusion through these premises.
Now that was just one argument, there are many others.... though just a wee heads up, if anyone brings up the Transcendental Argument for God - that too falls in it's initial premises under Quantum Mechanics.

Oh and don't feel bad about not having a solid counter argument against Quantum Mech... In the hundred years or so it's been about there has been no indication that it's actually wrong (and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can prove otherwise).


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 1, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I have no problem with you having an irrational/personal belief, but if you claim there is a rational/logical conclusion for it and that it relates to reality, then I think there are problems.


 





YOU JUST GOT OWNED WITH LOGIC


----------



## JasonK (Dec 1, 2011)

I lol'd

Ray Comfort is probably my favourite creationist ever


----------



## Godmil (Dec 1, 2011)

I loved the Matt Dillahunty reply to that where he just goes "So who created the coconut?"
Actually he then trumphs it by pointing out that the banana is only the way it is because of human intervention, and that the original banana fruit was very different... which would suggest that humans have one upped god


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 1, 2011)

Ok, so I dont have time to make a long reply, but I thought I would just say this.



> You're right, we accept causality in order to live our lives and see the world in a logical way. However, causality only works at the scale in which we have experience. Any unusual quantum effects level themselves out by the time you get to anything we can have direct and immediate experience of. There is no reason to throw out causality in our day to day lives.



If QM are so illogical to our logical understanding which we should not throw out in our day to day lives, how can we logically prove them to be true? What's more important? Which comes first? Logic and philosophy or mathematics and science? How can we understand quantum mechanics if they seem so illogical? If we can't truly understand quantum mechanics, how do we know logically that we are right?

How can something illogical and unreasonable be true? "Is reason always reasonable?" (GK Chesterton... heh heh great question)

How can I or anybody know Quantum Mechanics to be true if I and nobody cannot ultimately understand them logically in our minds?

I personally believe that in order for these particles to come into existence, they need a cause. Could this cause be something that is not in our physical level? Otherwise if there is no cause for these particle's existence, then ultimately there is no cause for the universe or for anything. If there is no cause for the universe, then how could there be any cause in our day to day life?

Or you could say that it is the nature of space and time for particles to come into existence, since space and time is required for quantum mechanics to exist? But then you're saying the nature of space and time is the cause for the particles coming into existence.

So let me get this straight.. youre saying that macroscopic level things need cause, but microscopic dont? dont the two exist together though? how did the macroscopic level come into existence? macroscopic things need a cause, right? how did the microscopic level come into existence?

Oh, and in my Chemistry we are getting into quantum mechanics a little bit. its quite interesting. 

Asking somebody to believe Quantum Mechanics without a logical explanation, and saying "there is no logical explanation" is illogical.

oh and I hate it when I get a long reply and then somehow I lose it... ahhhgg >.< I feel your pain. 



> No, you didn't refute this. What you did was invent a magical exception that has no grounds in reality. You haven't yet explained why I should take this assertion seriously.



my definition of God has remained the same throughout this argument. If my definition of God is correct, and this free agent did create time, this free agent must be outside of time, since it created it. and in order to create something an agent must be outside of it. Thus this free agent is not bound to time, which it created. Thus this free agent cannot be an actual infinite, since an actual infinite is impossible inside of time. how does this not refute your point? :|

Are we arguing about your definition of God, or mine? Because I sure dont know what your definition of God is... other than your definition of God seems to be bound to time, and thus is not really God, since it's not "almighty".


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 1, 2011)

There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 1, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.


 
The fact that the universe is expanding?
The cosmic microwave background radiation?
The fact that every galaxy is accelerating away from each other?


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 1, 2011)

The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas. And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 1, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas. And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?


 
I've nothing to say about virtual particles, so I won't.

As for your other point, every galaxy that has been tested conforms to this. If anything our local group goes against this because the Andromeda galaxy is eventually going to eventually collide with us. However, this is easily explained by gravity pulling the galaxies together.

Cosmic radiation is solid, quantifiable proof of a colossal expansion around 13.5 Bn years ago. Turn on your analogue TV and you can see it for yourself. It was predicted to appear in the microwave range, and it was. It was predicted to be around 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 Kelvin and it was.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 1, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.



Though I dont agree with what you said about there being no definite proof of the big bang, you had a very good second point.

These particles MUST have a cause (if it does not have a cause, we cannot logically understand how this is true for a thing to have no cause). Either they cause themselves or something else (maybe God...?) caused them. But how can a thing such as a particle cause itself?

Unless you say that the particles are the uncaused cause of the universe. Thus you are attributing the creation of the universe, and the creation of causality to a set of conditions called "Quantum Mechanics". This set of conditions must have always existed in order for it to be the uncaused cause, and must have caused time. How can a set of conditions be self existent? How can a set of conditions cause time? If this set of conditions can do all of this which seems impossible, it must be somehow God. And thus, is not simply a "set of conditions", but a free agent, an uncaused cause, unmoved mover.

Nothing can come from nothing.

Somebody prove to me that science comes before logic and philosophy. Good luck. You're going to have to used logic and philosophy to do so. *cough cough* I think I've made my point... science derives from logic. You must use logic and philosophy in order to prove science. Science stating otherwise saying "not every effect needs a logical cause" is denying it's own cause, which is logic and philosophy, which science has derived from.

Just like the statement. "Philosophy is dead." In order to come to this conclusion, we must use philosophy before we can conclude with the philosophic statement "philosophy is dead".

An interesting idea... if an animal is starving to death and you place food in front of it, what will happen? can an animal choose to not eat this food? can an animal go against it's own instincts or self survival? can we as humans choose to not eat food if we are starving to death? can we as humans use our free will to go against our instincts for self survival?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 1, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Either they cause themselves or something else (maybe God...?) caused them. But how can a thing such as a particle cause itself?


 
So what caused your God? You can't just declare him timeless and move on because that's patently absurd when nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless. It's irrational.

I do wish you'd try and answer this point, because you haven't.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 1, 2011)

Muesli said:


> So what caused your God? You can't just declare him timeless and move on because that's patently absurd when nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless. It's irrational.
> 
> I do wish you'd try and answer this point, because you haven't.



Nothing caused God. If something had, then "God" wouldnt be "God".

God IS the cause. The uncaused cause. If there isn't an uncaused cause, the universe is an actual infinite, which is impossible.

I was showing you that He's timeless, because you said God is an actual infinite. Something that is timeless and changeless cannot be an actual infinite.



> nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless.



uhm the uncaused cause of the universe wouldnt be inside the universe. (Im not saying it couldnt go within the universe). it would be the outside CAUSE of the universe. get what I mean? everything WITHIN the universe of space time is bound to time. A thing or being outside the universe would not be bound to time, since time only exists within the universe.

I think we can both agree that we both feel like we're going in circles... and like we're banging our heads against the wall. (or against each other's heads..) I hope nobody gets a concussion. 

(heh, I think your favorite line is "patently absurd.  )


----------



## Muesli (Dec 1, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Nothing caused God. If something had, then "God" wouldnt be "God".
> 
> God IS the cause. The uncaused cause. If there isn't an uncaused cause, the universe is an actual infinite, which is impossible.
> 
> ...


 
You just repeated exactly what you have been saying all this time. What you say, logically following the laws of causality, is that there must be an initial mover. However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible.

Now, you carry on in spite of this logical contradiction. I, on the other hand, simply stop there and say "I don't know". That is where we differ.


----------



## cubersmith (Dec 1, 2011)

I'm surprised there isn't more christians.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 2, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> I'm surprised there isn't more christians.


I wonder where we all live. Maybe our geographical location says something about it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 2, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> I wonder where we all live. Maybe our geographical location says something about it.


 
Probably more about our general demographic.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 2, 2011)

Muesli said:


> However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible.
> 
> Now, you carry on in spite of this logical contradiction. I, on the other hand, simply stop there and say "I don't know". That is where we differ.



Im sorry, but I didnt quite understand what you said. especially the "However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible." Can you reword that? (perhaps Im just stupid... sorry you dont have to.)

Do we really know anything for sure? Can we say "we really know nothing for certain"? If we say "we really know nothing for certain" we are in reality saying "we really know for certain that we know nothing for certain". Ok sorry that was a bit irrelevant to what's being said, but I just thought it was interesting.. 



> I'm surprised there isn't more christians.



Eh... they just dont want to get into a big argument and spend lots of time... they're here...I think... but yeah.


----------



## Nestor (Dec 3, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> I'm surprised there isn't more christians.


 
Cubers tend to be logical, rational people....


----------



## AnAverageJo (Dec 3, 2011)

I am a christian but i don't judge based on religion and i love to study other peoples beliefs


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 4, 2011)




----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> video



Peanut butter must have the answer


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


"Any theory on the orange of life..."
The whole video was brilliant!


----------



## Muesli (Dec 4, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Im sorry, but I didnt quite understand what you said. especially the "However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible." Can you reword that? (perhaps Im just stupid... sorry you dont have to.)
> 
> Do we really know anything for sure? Can we say "we really know nothing for certain"? If we say "we really know nothing for certain" we are in reality saying "we really know for certain that we know nothing for certain". Ok sorry that was a bit irrelevant to what's being said, but I just thought it was interesting..


 
What you say about your God means he must have created something from nothing, which we know is impossible. This makes it illogical. I don't know this for certain because way back at the origins of the Universe everything turns to mush. 

Physics doesn't work on the micro of dimension or macro of energy. Who are you to say that causality applies back at the origin of the universe? This completely undermines both of our arguments because we simply do not know. There's no logical way to squish your God into that gap until we can show how it all began. And there's no logical way I can deny the possibility that there was an initial mover because we simply don't have the knowledge to make logical connections like this. Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 4, 2011)

here we go again....



Muesli said:


> What you say about your God means he must have created something from nothing, which we know is impossible. This makes it illogical. I don't know this for certain because way back at the origins of the Universe everything turns to mush.



Define what you mean by "nothing".



Muesli said:


> Physics doesn't work on the micro of dimension or macro of energy. Who are you to say that causality applies back at the origin of the universe? This completely undermines both of our arguments because we simply do not know. There's no logical way to squish your God into that gap until we can show how it all began. And there's no logical way I can deny the possibility that there was an initial mover because we simply don't have the knowledge to make logical connections like this. Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.



Who are you to deny the laws of causality?

Why do you want to look for a way how it all began? Even if you dont believe in God, cant we agree that an initial mover which is a free agent is a very very possible answer? Or are you guys implying that there was no cause for the universe...?

How can there be any movement anywhere without an initial mover? Assuming there is no cause (or initial mover) for the universe ultimately denies any cause for anything and denies cause in our daily lives.



> Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.



What do you define as sufficient evidence? Logical evidence or scientifical evidence?

I really dont think at this point that arguing about this is even worth it...


----------



## Cuberty (Dec 4, 2011)

In my beliefs, I am fine with people who are religious, but when they try to talk me into being religious, I get annoyed. 
I remember one day one of the more annoying people in my class tried to sonvert me into being Christian by opening a book and just feeding me phrases. Seriously, he relies on the fact that the bible just might not be a lie.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 4, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> here we go again....
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by "nothing".


An absence of anything. Nil. Presumably this is what you agree on too. And before you say "BUT I MEAN THAT MY GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF HIS GLORIOUS ESSENCE" or something like that, you've yet to demonstrate that your God exists, let alone is necessary. So it's just all fanciful words.



zmikecuber said:


> Who are you to deny the laws of causality?



Nobody... try reading what I write.



zmikecuber said:


> Why do you want to look for a way how it all began?



Wow... Anti science much? 



zmikecuber said:


> Even if you dont believe in God, cant we agree that an initial mover which is a free agent is a very very possible answer?



It's only possible. It's no more probable than me claiming the universe was created 15 minutes ago, when I sneezed. 



zmikecuber said:


> Or are you guys implying that there was no cause for the universe...?



I never implied there wasn't a cause, I just argue for not jumping to, somewhat illogical, conclusions.



zmikecuber said:


> How can there be any movement anywhere without an initial mover? Assuming there is no cause (or initial mover) for the universe ultimately denies any cause for anything and denies cause in our daily lives.



Again, who knows what laws of physics, if any, were in motion at the origin of the universe. Just because when I prod something and it moves now, billions of years later, doesn't mean it did then in that singularity.



zmikecuber said:


> What do you define as sufficient evidence? Logical evidence or scientifical evidence?



Logical evidence isn't evidence. It's just fancy thoughts that lead somewhere. You need real, tangible evidence to base your premises off.

For example.

Premise one: All orange are purple,
Premise two: This is an orange,
Conclusion: This orange is purple.

Blatantly, this hypothetical orange isn't purple. However, I just proved it is logically. That's what happens when your premises are flawed, which yours are.



zmikecuber said:


> I really dont think at this point that arguing about this is even worth it...


 
That's precisely my point... It's completely fruitless us arguing this. We're two blind people arguing what the colour blue looks like. The only difference is that I'm waiting to find out and you're making statements of truth when there's no way you can know.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 4, 2011)

Can't wait till tomorrow so I can catch up on and reply to the thread 
On a plus side it's great that we haven't had any (serious) anti-evolution sentiments.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 4, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Can't wait till tomorrow so I can catch up on and reply to the thread
> On a plus side it's great that we haven't had any (serious) anti-evolution sentiments.



cant wait either!  this stuff is actually REALLY fun. hahaha.

haha Im definitely NOT anti evolution.  though Im not completely convinced that evolution is true, right now its the only plausible theory. Ive argued with creationalists actually... *facepalm* thats not fun. "THE BIBLE SAYS THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN SEVEN DAYS CUZ IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD AND IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME LOOK IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT ITS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" great proof. its not even logical.



> An absence of anything. Nil. Presumably this is what you agree on too. And before you say "BUT I MEAN THAT MY GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF HIS GLORIOUS ESSENCE" or something like that, you've yet to demonstrate that your God exists, let alone is necessary. So it's just all fanciful words.


 
ok so can we agree that if there was at one point in time, nothing, an absence of EVERYTHING, there would still be nothing in existence. can we agree on this?



> Nobody... try reading what I write.



I do read what you write. Do you read what I write?



> Wow... Anti science much?



Im simply pointing out that if someone here disagrees with causality, there is no point in looking for the cause of anything. I didnt mean that statement to sound like my opinion. If there is no causality, there is no cause to look for the cause of anything.



> It's only possible. It's no more probable than me claiming the universe was created 15 minutes ago, when I sneezed.



If there is an initial mover, is it not probable that this initial mover could be a free agent?



> I never implied there wasn't a cause, I just argue for not jumping to, somewhat illogical, conclusions.



ok sorry if I misunderstood you. 



> Again, who knows what laws of physics, if any, were in motion at the origin of the universe. Just because when I prod something and it moves now, billions of years later, doesn't mean it did then in that singularity.



How did these "who knows what laws of physics" get put into motion to cause the origin of the universe? Was there an initial mover for these laws of physics to be put into motion?



> Logical evidence isn't evidence. It's just fancy thoughts that lead somewhere. You need real, tangible evidence to base your premises off.
> 
> For example.
> 
> ...



ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.

We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?

Muesli, do you realize that most of your points you have made in this thread have been proof from logic? 

Why dont you counter my logic with *tangible evidence* of why my logic and any logic cannot be considered "evidence"?

Many times logic is looked at as a crutch... but its not. lol. ;P It's awesome.



> That's precisely my point... It's completely fruitless us arguing this. We're two blind people arguing what the colour blue looks like. The only difference is that I'm waiting to find out and you're making statements of truth when there's no way you can know.



we can know from logic. I've been trying to show that. logic ROCKS. maybe I havent been doing a very good job of that... this thread really isnt on the top of my priority list....


----------



## Muesli (Dec 4, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ok so can we agree that if there was at one point in time, nothing, an absence of EVERYTHING, there would still be nothing in existence. can we agree on this?



Nope. There wasn’t a time. There wasn’t anything.



zmikecuber said:


> I do read what you write. Do you read what I write?


Yeah. I was merely pointing out that I wasn’t trying to prove anything, I was disproving what you were putting forward. If you read what I’d originally written again you’ll realise that I’m not questioning causality per se, I’m throwing everything we know about physics into question.


zmikecuber said:


> Im simply pointing out that if someone here disagrees with causality, there is no point in looking for the cause of anything. I didnt mean that statement to sound like my opinion. If there is no causality, there is no cause to look for the cause of anything.


I _don’t_ disagree with causality. I disagree with you using in your argument it where we have no reason to think that it was even present.


zmikecuber said:


> If there is an initial mover, is it not probable that this initial mover could be a free agent?



It’s possible. Who’s to say what’s probable. We don’t know anything about the conditions of the pre/early universe so anybody can say anything and it could be plausible.


zmikecuber said:


> How did these "who knows what laws of physics" get put into motion to cause the origin of the universe? Was there an initial mover for these laws of physics to be put into motion?


You’re confusing the laws of physics for actual material things. They’re the way we have to describe the way the particles that exist interact with each other. There’s no reason to presume that an intelligent being got it all started.
This is essentially a version of the watchmaker argument from what I can gather. Take the Giant’s Causeway, for example. At first glance it seems designed. People looked for an intelligence and found none. Turns out it was just a volcanic event that caused it, completely natural. It made itself. If the particles exist and they react in some way then the laws that describe that interaction must follow.



zmikecuber said:


> ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?
> 
> ...


What are you on about… 
There are basic assumptions that we have to take for granted. For example, A = A = not B. But that’s it. Pretty much anything else comes from real evidence. 
Logic can only go so far. Logically, why would something travelling faster than me have a slower passage of time compared to me? Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.


----------



## PandaCuber (Dec 4, 2011)

I would really like to be buddhist. I like their philosophy and way of life.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 4, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Ive argued with creationalists actually...


 
Good man


----------



## Julian (Dec 4, 2011)

PandaCuber said:


> I would really like to be buddhist. I like their philosophy and way of life.


So be a Buddhist? There's nothing stopping you...


----------



## PandaCuber (Dec 4, 2011)

Julian said:


> So be a Buddhist? There's nothing stopping you...


 
Yeah i know, but i would want to do extensive research before i make it my official religion. i would like to enter in knowing how it all works.


----------



## Igora (Dec 5, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?
> 
> ...



Logic is essentially the mathematics of premises, and can have the same impacts on reality as mathematics can. However, once that "mathematics" is applied to reality, the premises need to be based in reality. Meaning one must use the "mathematics" of reality, physics. In other words, one must use premises based on reality, where these premises can be validated, or invalidated, through the use of science. Your argument of initial cause has premises based on macroscopic observations of interactions. However, these interactions break down on the microscopic level, leaving the premises of the "proof" unfounded, and any conclusions also unfounded.


----------



## ZamHalen (Dec 5, 2011)

Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 5, 2011)

> Nope. There wasn’t a time. There wasn’t anything.



ok right, so if there was nothing there would be nothing.



> I don’t disagree with causality. I disagree with you using in your argument it where we have no reason to think that it was even present.



so youre saying causality isnt present everywhere? what basis do you have for saying this?



> You’re confusing the laws of physics for actual material things. They’re the way we have to describe the way the particles that exist interact with each other. There’s no reason to presume that an intelligent being got it all started.
> This is essentially a version of the watchmaker argument from what I can gather. Take the Giant’s Causeway, for example. At first glance it seems designed. People looked for an intelligence and found none. Turns out it was just a volcanic event that caused it, completely natural. It made itself. If the particles exist and they react in some way then the laws that describe that interaction must follow.



So the cause was completely natural. Yet if the cause was not there it would not be.

Im not saying the laws of physics are material things. Im saying that they exist in physical time and space only if you get what I mean.



> There are basic assumptions that we have to take for granted. For example, A = A = not B. But that’s it. Pretty much anything else comes from real evidence.
> Logic can only go so far. Logically, why would something travelling faster than me have a slower passage of time compared to me? Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.



and your definition of real evidence is tangible evidence, correct? why? why is tangible evidence real evidence?

why do we have to take A=A for granted? According to your definition of real evidence, do we have any real evidence to believe that? Is it logical to believe that A=A?



> Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.



So you dont use logic when dealing with the real world?



> Good man



creationalists arent even funny. >.< its terrible. no Im serious. even though I feel like you guys dont understand what Im trying to say which is my fault pretty much, creationalists DONT want to understand what Im saying, so they wont understand, and they can be completely illogical sometimes. gahk!!! but yeah... atheists give me a headache alot of the time (hey nothing personal here )... creationalists give me a concussion... ughk...



> Logic is essentially the mathematics of premises, and can have the same impacts on reality as mathematics can. However, once that "mathematics" is applied to reality, the premises need to be based in reality. Meaning one must use the "mathematics" of reality, physics. In other words, one must use premises based on reality, where these premises can be validated, or invalidated, through the use of science. Your argument of initial cause has premises based on macroscopic observations of interactions. However, these interactions break down on the microscopic level, leaving the premises of the "proof" unfounded, and any conclusions also unfounded.



wait are you saying logic=mathematics=physics? 

so theres no cause on the microscopic level? how can you prove that?



> Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.



yeah defining religion is hard.... is atheism a religion? or is it just the absence of religion? is buddhism a philosophy or a religion? haha so confusing


----------



## Igora (Dec 5, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> wait are you saying logic=mathematics=physics?


 
In essence, mathematics is an applied version of logic, and this logic of quantities, properties, and patterns is applied to reality by way of physics. But, this isn't to say that the mathematics that describe reality by way of physics _is_ reality. For instance, looking on Newton's laws of motion, when we apply earth's gravity onto a ball traveling up into the air at 6m/s at the time of measuring, the mathematics says that in the time before we measured the ball the ball had a larger velocity and was lower in height. However, this doesn't mean to say that the ball had to have been lower in height with a larger velocity. To know whether the ball was or not means to explore the possibilities and see what possibility has evidence directly linked to the reality in which the mathematics describes (the ball was thrown by someone, as shown by: video of the event, concuring testimonial from various individuals, and fingerprints from the person). Now, the possibility does exist that the ball simply shot out from the earth, which had a new hole that was filled immediately, because a plastic barbie doll willed it to do so. However, this possibility has no evidence to support it, and thus is an unfounded claim. That being said, if evidence were to be found that that had occured, the validity of it should be reconsidered.



zmikecuber said:


> so theres no cause on the microscopic level?



This was brought up before on the particles popping in and out of existance without cause. This is not to say there is no cause on the microscopic level, but that not everything in reality has a cause.



zmikecuber said:


> how can you prove that?



It isn't proven in the sense of an absolute truth, nothing in reality can be, but all evidence points to there being no cause. And if there is one, it is indistinguishable from there not being one, and thus no reason to believe there is.


----------



## Hershey (Dec 5, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> or is it just the absence of religion?


 
Yes. Atheism is a very broad term, it just means you don't believe in god. There is not a set way of being an atheist, or an set of rules every atheist must abide by. However, you could get more specific and have groups such as the Secular Jews, Humanists, etc. or philosophies like Confucianism or maybe Buddhism (without the reincarnation stuff).


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 5, 2011)

Igora said:


> In essence, mathematics is an applied version of logic, and this logic of quantities, properties, and patterns is applied to reality by way of physics. But, this isn't to say that the mathematics that describe reality by way of physics _is_ reality. For instance, looking on Newton's laws of motion, when we apply earth's gravity onto a ball traveling up into the air at 6m/s at the time of measuring, the mathematics says that in the time before we measured the ball the ball had a larger velocity and was lower in height. However, this doesn't mean to say that the ball had to have been lower in height with a larger velocity. To know whether the ball was or not means to explore the possibilities and see what possibility has evidence directly linked to the reality in which the mathematics describes (the ball was thrown by someone, as shown by: video of the event, concuring testimonial from various individuals, and fingerprints from the person). Now, the possibility does exist that the ball simply shot out from the earth, which had a new hole that was filled immediately, because a plastic barbie doll willed it to do so. However, this possibility has no evidence to support it, and thus is an unfounded claim. That being said, if evidence were to be found that that had occured, the validity of it should be reconsidered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok Im sorry I didnt really follow that whole first paragraph... I will reread it when I get a chance, I promise. 

can somebody logically prove to me how on earth its possible for particles to jump in and out of existence with NO cause whatsoever?!? otherwise, this belief of "these particles pop in and out of existence for no cause and dont ask why" sounds very similar to many people's belief in God...

what evidence points to there being no cause for the universe? the particles popping in and out of existence you mean? or am I missing something...? (yeah Im probably missing something... I miss lots of things hehehe ;p)


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 5, 2011)

Well, I literally sat down and read through this whole thread and I enjoyed reading it. I can see the points each side has made and I'm not surprised to see no concession made. 

I was born in a catholic family, at around the age of 5 I started using logic. My parents told me that magic isn't real, so I pieced together that videogame characters are fake, Santa is fake and so is God. I never considered myself an Atheist or of any religious view point until I was about 12. At that time I just considered the whole God thing to be a joke. Shortly after I turned 17, I started dating a girl who was Catholic, I tried to believe, I really did. I said my own prayers before falling asleep, I "talked" to god a few times during the day and I even tried viewing the Bible in terms other than just "lol". Alas, I couldn't lie to myself and now I am, and always will be an Atheist, everyone around me knows this as well.

I love talking about religion, why people believe, why I don't believe, etc. I don't push my views on it as long as others grant me the same respect. Generally speaking, religion discussions are a bad idea as people who have never questioned their beliefs and have a completely closed mind to any other possibility usually become hostile with their words.

As for that Catholic girl I was dating, we are still together, and we are still very much in love. We don't allow religion to come between us.


----------



## PandaCuber (Dec 5, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.


 
I think its a religion based on philosophy.


----------



## Igora (Dec 5, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ok Im sorry I didnt really follow that whole first paragraph... I will reread it when I get a chance, I promise.
> 
> can somebody logically prove to me how on earth its possible for particles to jump in and out of existence with NO cause whatsoever?!? otherwise, this belief of "these particles pop in and out of existence for no cause and dont ask why" sounds very similar to many people's belief in God...)



Quantum Mechanics is based much on probabilities, including these particles, and there is a lot of evidence for them. For an in depth look see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. It is not that there is no reason for its existance, its just that there is nothing that is directly, or indirectly, causing them to exist.

Also, no one said "don't ask why" 


zmikecuber said:


> what evidence points to there being no cause for the universe? the particles popping in and out of existence you mean? or am I missing something...? (yeah Im probably missing something... I miss lots of things hehehe ;p)



It's not that there is evidence pointing to no cause of the universe, its just that we don't know, and there is no evidence pointing to any specific cause. The proof you cited that is based off of the necessity for initial cause is unfounded. Specifically because the premise is not entirely true in reality. It may seem intuitively true, but that is only because of our experiences on a day to day basis. Things we witness in day to day life have a cause and effect. However, once we dig further and further and find a counter example, it only means that not all things require a cause.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 6, 2011)

Ok, I just have a question... which I feel havent been answered. if somebody can logically answer please?



Igora said:


> However, once we dig further and further and find a counter example, it only means that not all things require a cause.



ok so how can there be an effect with no cause for that effect? and how can something with no mass exist? what proof is there that these particles have no cause whatsoever? (from what I got from the article, there is no physical/spatial cause that we know of)



> It is not that there is no reason for its existance, its just that there is nothing that is directly, or indirectly, causing them to exist.



how can we say that for sure? I mean could these particles be possibly being caused from something in a different dimension? or from something outside of time/space?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> is atheism a religion?


 
Calling atheism a religon is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Calling atheism a religon is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby.


 
I collect not-stamps all the time! I have boxes full of them!


----------



## Godmil (Dec 6, 2011)

Ooh, it's a biggy:
(I was going to also jump in on some of the logical parts, but I'll save that for later... rest assured there are many logical fallacies being thrown about)



zmikecuber said:


> If QM are so illogical to our logical understanding which we should not throw out in our day to day lives, how can we logically prove them to be true? What's more important? Which comes first? Logic and philosophy or mathematics and science? How can we understand quantum mechanics if they seem so illogical? If we can't truly understand quantum mechanics, how do we know logically that we are right?



Easy explanation. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical theory. There are a ton of equations, and collectively they perfectly account for interations on the quantum level. And in keeping with all good theories, they could be used to predict lots of unobserved phenomena, which (despite seeming impossible) was later demonstrated to be true. The maths is perfect and completely correlates to observable physical phenomena. The only problem is that understanding the maths (in a real world sense) is a total mind****. The way the quantum world works is unintuitive to the way we see the world around us. But that's our limitation. You're not alone in thinking it sounds too crazy to be true. Schrödinger thought the real world interpretations of his maths was ridiculous, so proposed his 'cat' thought experiment to show this... unfortunatly for him everyone else thought this was a brilliant explanation so it got adopted as one of the main ways of explaining the interpretation of QM  Einstein also had big problems with the 'reality' of QM, he spent a long time trying to disprove the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.. however he was shown to be wrong. 



zmikecuber said:


> How can I or anybody know Quantum Mechanics to be true if I and nobody cannot ultimately understand them logically in our minds?



It's unintuitive, that doesn't mean it can't be understood. Anyone (of reasonable intelligence) can understand it.



zmikecuber said:


> I personally believe that in order for these particles to come into existence, they need a cause.


That's fine, you can have whatever personal belief you want. Though that doesn't mean that it needs to be actually true.



zmikecuber said:


> Oh, and in my Chemistry we are getting into quantum mechanics a little bit. its quite interesting.


Cool, I didn't think it would come up in chemistry (but then I never really did it).



zmikecuber said:


> Asking somebody to believe Quantum Mechanics without a logical explanation, and saying "there is no logical explanation" is illogical.



Good thing I'm not doing that then  There is a logical explanation for QM, the maths is perfect, the way they related to real world events (the physics) is perfect. It's not illogical, it's just hard to understand intuitively.



Cube-Fu said:


> There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive.



That's true... in as far as we can say that nothing can be found to be perfectly true. Big-bang theory is just the best theory we have at the moment. And it is a very good one.



Cube-Fu said:


> And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them.



Well that's true... you could say 'god did it' to absolutely everything. But if you're claiming to use reason then Occam's razor applies.. there is no reason to add supernatural premises to an event that can easily be explained through natural means.



Cube-Fu said:


> The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas.



Oh, wait, you're claiming that the big bang theory isn't good? I'm afraid all the evidence backs it up, and no alternative can be thought of as being more likely. It would be unreasonable to suggest that it isn't the best understanding we have of what happened in the early days of the universe.



Cube-Fu said:


> And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?



Yes. Yes it is. Do you have a problem with it?



zmikecuber said:


> These particles MUST have a cause.



No, it's not the case that they must.



zmikecuber said:


> Unless you say that the particles are the uncaused cause of the universe.



There's no reason to jump to that - it was your argument that 'if an uncaused cause exists, then it must be the ultimate creator of the universe'.
But while you're at it, lets hypothesise that this is similar to how the universe was created. Instead of a single particle/anti-particle what if it was a huge number of particles/anti-paticles (they'd need to be balanced), though if it was a huge explosion the outward energy would need to be balanced, to fit the 'net energy of zero' conditions that virtual particles have. Well could the explosive outword energy be balanced... why yes it can, gravity acts as a negative energy... but if all the particles/anti-particles were balanced (this is called CP-Symmetry) then wouldn't they just cancel each other out straight away, leaving nothing? Yes... unless CP-Violations could occur in which particles could change from positive to negative (and vice versa) without breaking any physical laws - and hence leaving an unbalanced amount of particles (with which to comprise all the matter in the universe). Well, it just so happens that CP-violation is perfectly possible, and has been demonstrated. There is a theory in cosmology that during the big bang, you only needed one 10 billionth of the matter to undergo CP-violation to leave enough matter to form all the stars and stuff in our universe. It's a pretty interesting idea that the creation of the universe could be very much like how virtual particles appear.



zmikecuber said:


> Nothing can come from nothing.



Well, there is a very interesting concept in M-Theory (The more recent development in String Theory), that there could be a greater 11-dimentional universe in which our universe is just one of many that is popping up (just like how virtual particles pop up in our universe). However it's very much limited to theory at the moment. The fact is we can never know for certain what could be outside our universe, if we can even say that there is an 'ouside'. There are predictions that could add weight to string/M theory, however we need particles accelerators more powerful than the LHC to do the tests.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 6, 2011)

Double post I know, but I want to make it easier for someone to reply to this post about logic without having to wade through the science post above.

zmikecuber, Surely you realise that you're trying to 'have your cake and eat it'. You're saying that logic works independantly of physical events... however the purpose of your argument is to propose that your conclusion (god) is actually real. If you claim a real world conclusion you must have real world premises.

Further, one of the main logical fallacy you're employing is called 'special pleading'. With your causal argument you're saying causality is absolutely true in all cases (except for one case that you're defining). Also your conclusion is solely based on your proposed premise being true - which is probably also begging the question.

So, there are two main flaws, 1. cherry picking what is and isn't related to reality in your arguments, 2. Your arguments including logical fallacies.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 6, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Double post I know, but I want to make it easier for someone to reply to this post about logic without having to wade through the science post above.
> 
> zmikecuber, Surely you realise that you're trying to 'have your cake and eat it'. You're saying that logic works independantly of physical events... however the purpose of your argument is to propose that your conclusion (god) is actually real. If you claim a real world conclusion you must have real world premises.
> 
> ...



Arent you trying to have your cake and eat it too? sorry just couldnt resist 

So youre saying in order to have my real world conclusion that I must have real world premises. Isn't logic a real world premise? What do you mean by "real world"? Meaning scientific physical proof? If you want real world proof... just look around. there's my "real world proof" for God.

Causality is true in all cases. When I say uncaused cause I mean "not caused by another". Please try and understand that the concept of God which I am proposing does not need a cause because it IS the cause. It's very nature is the cause. Is that special pleading...?

And yes, I read your science post, and it was interesting though unfortunately I didnt understand all of it... 

Ok, so are you saying these particles come into existence because of perfect mathematics? Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?

I find it interesting... that I believe that everything has a cause. And you guys would too if it were not for these virtual particles. Yet once these virtual particles are discovered me being the theist is reinforced that something unseen must be the cause or perhaps the perfect mathematics are the cause. Yet an atheist instead questions causality.

So... in order for my arguments of an uncaused cause, which very nature is cause, to be false, I must first deny that there is causality for everything which's nature is not cause, and thus I must contradict my own logic. Somehow atheism is seeming much more illogical to me now... because in order for me to become an atheist and to admit that you guys are right and there is no God, I must deny causality to things which require a cause to exist. How can you expect anybody to do this?

Another interesting point... according to theists who believe in an afterlife, we will one day find out there is a God. According to atheists who do not believe in an after life, we will never find out that there is not a God.

Actually, about a year ago... I came to the conclusion through my understanding of God and logic, that the passage of time is an illusion. That really, there is no "past present and future" since God is outside of time and all time must just be to Him. (I think Thomas Aquinas goes into this somewhat...) Just lately I heard that Einstein had somehow proved this, and I laughed and said "Wait they just figured that out now?". (Im not bragging here, just sayin'... )

And lastly, its not a special pleading. Its just the fact that an actual infinite is impossible. Infinity is not an actual, its the potential to go on to infinity.

Sorry, I have to go for now... I had lots more to say... I'll post later.


----------



## Escher (Dec 6, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?


 
Is reading the cause for a book?


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 6, 2011)

Escher said:


> Is reading the cause for a book?



so you are saying is the ability to read the direct cause of a physical object, a book?

Uhm, no. I never said that. How on earth did you get that...?

Well what publishing company made the book? Who made the book? what's the book made of?

I know what you guys are going to say... the perfect mathematics, or quantum physics do not directly cause the particles into existence, yet they allow the possibility that they may come into existence.

take away this "allowation" and what do we get? doesnt this say something about the perfect mathematics? without them, these particles wouldnt be coming into existence.

or maybe there is no cause for these particles to come into existence. maybe they're the uncaused cause that I've been trying to prove. but then these particles have a quite different nature than I would think... since these particles can defy our logic.... mindblowing. if these particles are uncaused then they must have a nature other than simply the nature of a particle.


----------



## Escher (Dec 6, 2011)

My argument is that mathematics is no different to reading - it is not a 'thing' that can be caused or uncaused. It 'exists' simply because we decide that certain axioms exist.

I know what all these terms mean but I don't pretend to understand them, so I can't comment on the uncaused existence of particles.

It seems to me like the majority of your arguments start with the conclusion that everything has a cause apart from the uncaused cause, and then arbitrarily assign lots of things causes without proof.

Maybe I'm just picking on a bad analogy.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 6, 2011)

ok yeah, it wasnt the best analogy, but I get your point.

so if we hadnt discovered quantum mechanics they never would have existed? is that what youre saying...? reading would exist whether or not we discovered it. the quantum mechanics would exist whether or not we discovered them. and quantum mechanics definitely dont exist only in a conceptual level, since we can see the effects of quantum mechanics. the effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence. thus can we not assume that quantum mechanics is not at least part of the cause of the existence of these particles?

Well yes, everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause itself. because that IS the cause. does cause have a cause? if you say "cause has a cause", arent you contradicting yourself?


----------



## Igora (Dec 6, 2011)

I'm going to reply to this too, not to say this wasn't aimed at Godmil


zmikecuber said:


> So youre saying in order to have my real world conclusion that I must have real world premises.


yes


zmikecuber said:


> Isn't logic a real world premise?


No, logic is a methodology, not a supreme truth giver. The validity of a conclusions depends on the validity of the premises, as well as how the conclusion was arrived at.


zmikecuber said:


> What do you mean by "real world"? Meaning scientific physical proof? If you want real world proof... just look around. there's my "real world proof" for God.


That is in no way proof for your god, it is not proof for anything but the universe exists.



zmikecuber said:


> Causality is true in all cases.


A counter-example was provided that invalidates this statement.


zmikecuber said:


> When I say uncaused cause I mean "not caused by another". Please try and understand that the concept of God which I am proposing does not need a cause


But if causlity, as you posit, is true in *all* cases, isn't god a case? Even so, it doesn't matter, because the foundation of the proof, the first premise, was that everything that begins to exist has a cause, this was discredited, so it follows that the universe may not had to have had a cause.


zmikecuber said:


> because it IS the cause. It's very nature is the cause. Is that special pleading...?


Yet there is no evidence to support the claim that your god is any cause or the nature of cause, so it is sort of a special pleading in that there is a double standard for your god.


zmikecuber said:


> Ok, so are you saying these particles come into existence because of perfect mathematics? Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?


No, the mathematics is a perfect description of the events of the particles, not that the particles come into existance because the mathematics told them to.



zmikecuber said:


> I find it interesting... that I believe that everything has a cause. And you guys would too if it were not for these virtual particles.


That's the way science works 


zmikecuber said:


> Yet once these virtual particles are discovered me being the theist is reinforced that something unseen must be the cause or perhaps the perfect mathematics are the cause. Yet an atheist instead questions causality.


Something unseen may be the cause for some things, yes. But, there is no evidence at the moment to make that premise credible. And, one should re-evaluate one's beliefs in the arrival of new evidence and facts, otherwise one is closed-minded, not to say you are.



zmikecuber said:


> So... in order for my arguments of an uncaused cause, which very nature is cause, to be false, I must first deny that there is causality for everything which's nature is not cause, and thus I must contradict my own logic.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by a nature of cause. What is said is that for the argument of an uncaused cause to be invalid, then there needs to be a problem with the premise that all things require a cause, which was demonstrated.



zmikecuber said:


> Somehow atheism is seeming much more illogical to me now... because in order for me to become an atheist and to admit that you guys are right and there is no God, I must deny causality to things which require a cause to exist. How can you expect anybody to do this?


No one is saying that there is no god, and if they are they have no proof, only that there is no evidence linking the physical world to a creator, and thus no reason to believe. And, nothing truely needs a cause to exist, all existance that we know of comes from our big bang. And, we simply don't know what caused the big bang to happen, or if it even needed a cause at all. It is up to the individual to question, and evaluate the claims of dieties and other claims to reason whether a belief in god is reasonable.



zmikecuber said:


> Another interesting point... according to theists who believe in an afterlife, we will one day find out there is a God. According to atheists who do not believe in an after life, we will never find out that there is not a God.


Cool story, bro 



zmikecuber said:


> Actually, about a year ago... I came to the conclusion through my understanding of God and logic, that the passage of time is an illusion. That really, there is no "past present and future" since God is outside of time and all time must just be to Him. (I think Thomas Aquinas goes into this somewhat...) Just lately I heard that Einstein had somehow proved this, and I laughed and said "Wait they just figured that out now?". (Im not bragging here, just sayin'... )


Einstein essentially said that the passage of time varies depending of a few things, not that time is an illusion.



zmikecuber said:


> And lastly, its not a special pleading. Its just the fact that an actual infinite is impossible. Infinity is not an actual, its the potential to go on to infinity.


I have yet to have seen this demonstrated, actual infinities exist in mathematics, the nature of time, etc. Aristotle's view of infinity was flawed in that his says basically that nothing can be infinite, because nothing can be bigger than the heavens. As for potential infinities, especially in time, if time is not infinite, then there is a finite number of time in both the set of past and the set of future, and because there is no reason to belief there is a finite number in the future, there is no reason to think there is a finite number in the past.
In essence, total time = past + future (present is a point with no value for amount of time), if future is a potential infinity, there are an infinite number of specific points in time in the future, then total time = past + infinity, past in this case is not negative infinity, because I am not using past relative to the current time, if I was, then the total time would be total time = future - past. Anyway, so the total time = positive number + infinity which is infinity. I don't see why an actual infinity can't exist, they are used all the time in physics when dealing with calculus. For example, dt, where t=time.


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> ok yeah, it wasnt the best analogy, but I get your point.
> 
> so if we hadnt discovered quantum mechanics they never would have existed? is that what youre saying...? reading would exist whether or not we discovered it. the quantum mechanics would exist whether or not we discovered them. and quantum mechanics definitely dont exist only in a conceptual level, since we can see the effects of quantum mechanics. the effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence. thus can we not assume that quantum mechanics is not at least part of the cause of the existence of these particles?
> 
> Well yes, everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause itself. because that IS the cause. does cause have a cause? if you say "cause has a cause", arent you contradicting yourself?


 
There is a counter-example, like Igora just said, to "everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause". What you should really say is "everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause and also these particles".

Quantum mechanics, as in mathematics, is just a set of descriptors created by humans. The actual 'things' still occur, of course, just like there must be an equal number of particles and anti-particles and how 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't possess an existence apart from a conceptual one. "The effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence" - unfortunately this is not the case, quantum mechanics provides not the effect but a prediction of it. Things 'just happen' and we create concepts to understand them - the concepts only 'exist' in neural connections.

I'm arguing that when we create concepts such as mathematics, or quantum mechanics, or special relativity - we're just reading the book of the Universe - not creating causes.


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 7, 2011)

Ok, I dont have time for a full reply now...

but ok...

so these particles are virtual but not real? what the heck does that mean? am I understanding this right? at least thats what I got from the wikipedia article.

so these particles exist for a short amount of time? how can these particles have caused the big bang if before the big bang there was no time?

can these particles come into existence ex nihilo? like not the scientifical nothing, the metaphysical nothing. NOTHING nothing.

so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from?

oh, and there is a difference between metaphysical cause and physical cause I believe... I'll look into it.

it seems to me that since we can find no cause for particles coming into existence presently, that we are jumping to the conclusion that there is no cause.... can somebody explain how these things can come into existence without a cause?

so these particles come into existence because they can... they have the ability to... even though they dont exist, space/time allows particles to come into existence. so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from? does it come from space-time? where does space-time come from?

how did these particles cause the big bang, thus causing the universe? can somebody paint the complete picture here...?

*big yawn* yeah I have to go for now...


----------



## Godmil (Dec 7, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> so these particles are virtual but not real? what the heck does that mean?


No, they're real, they just exist for such a small period of time that they get the label 'virtual'.



zmikecuber said:


> so these particles exist for a short amount of time? how can these particles have caused the big bang if before the big bang there was no time?


Oh no, I suggested that the big bang could have been similar to the way that these zero net energy particles appear. I suggested that if the universe has Zero net energy it could have popped up in a larger universe in the same way that these particles exist in our universe... but that's really just an idea, there is no way of knowing.



zmikecuber said:


> can these particles come into existence ex nihilo? like not the scientifical nothing, the metaphysical nothing. NOTHING nothing.


Metaphysical nothing? No probably not. From what I understand their existance is a property of the universe. But I'm not going to let you get away with a god in a metaphysical nothing either. Metaphysical concepts aren't that relevant in reality.



zmikecuber said:


> so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from?


 If Heisenberg was right, there existence comes from a fundamental aspect of the universe - that being a discrete level of uncertainty - and related probability.



zmikecuber said:


> and there is a difference between metaphysical cause and physical cause I believe... I'll look into it.


The only things I can find about metaphysical causes are on pseudo-scientific spiritual healing sites. Though I think it's fare to say that metaphysical causes are just conceptual.



zmikecuber said:


> it seems to me that since we can find no cause for particles coming into existence presently, that we are jumping to the conclusion that there is no cause.... can somebody explain how these things can come into existence without a cause?



Actually it could be more along the lines of the fact that since you don't like the idea of them having no cause, you're jumping to the conclusion that there must be an unknown cause. However there is no actual logical reason for that assumption other than that it affects your world view. This fallacy is the 'argument from personal incredulity'. The way the evidence and reason goes at the moment, is that their existance is just a fundamental aspect of the universe. What I find interesting is that in the wiki article it seems to suggest these particles are the carriers of the electromagnetic force... so "F****** Magnets, how do they work?" Answer could be "Virtual Particles" 



zmikecuber said:


> where does space-time come from?


Well that's the big question that we started with. Answer is we don't know. You're suggesting god created it, but I'm suggesting that we don't need to look much further than natural forces for an examble of how things can come into existance. But ultimately, we don't know (unless however you're spot on and we find out after we die).



zmikecuber said:


> how did these particles cause the big bang, thus causing the universe? can somebody paint the complete picture here...?


Yeah that's the big question of Cosmology, virtual particles didn't create the big bang... but you could suggest that a process like theirs (but with many many particle pairs rather than just one) could show us the same framework. But it's just a hypothesis.
The idea goes in it's simplest form *if* there was a bigger universe outside our one, and similar properties existed in it (like uncertainty) then sporadic creation of particle pairs could happen. If in one of these creations there was a huge number of particles and equal number of antiparticles, but before they could annihalate each other, some of them (one in 10 billion) underwent charge-parity violation and swapped from being anti-particles to normal particles, then after all the others cancelled out you'd have an uneven number of positive particles that would carry on existing, and then could go on to create all the stars and such like. But it's really all speculation at this point (and maybe always will be).

It would be remise of me to point out the obvious issue.. if there is a 'bigger universe' where did it come from? 
You could insert a god here, but the way I predict that argument going is we could end up with a regression of universes, which I can't see a reason for not displaying an Actual Infinity.

I've been listening to a lot of Matt Dillahunty lately (thanks whoever posted that link before, he's a really interesting guy). And he suggested that there is nobody in the world that believes in a god because of arguments like causality and TAG. Rather these arguments are just attempts to intellectualise an existing belief. In which case nobody will really be swayed by them one way or the other. Seems like a reasonable opinion to me.


----------



## IanTheCuber (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
\ /


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 8, 2011)

IanTheCuber said:


> I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.


 
It really should be.

It's so terrible and yet so awesome.

It's like a train wreck.

I don't want to stare but I can't look away.


----------



## mdolszak (Dec 8, 2011)

I am a Christian.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 8, 2011)

IanTheCuber said:


> If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
> \ /


 
"Last edited by IanTheCuber; 9 Hours Ago at 01:43 AM. " ? I don't get it?

Hehehe, na, just kidding. I need to bow out of this thread anyway.. it takes a lot of time to do these replies and I've got a ton of work to do


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

IanTheCuber said:


> I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.


 
Yes how dare people state they have different beliefs to us.


----------



## Edward (Dec 8, 2011)

IanTheCuber said:


> I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.
> 
> If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
> \ /


 Haven't read through it in a bit, but this still seems to be a decent religious discussion with not too much true anger. It's a good religion thread IMO


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 8, 2011)

Ok, I have to step out of this thread, due to school... just wanted to make one point.

It seems to me that people are saying Im being "inconsistent" and that Im saying "everything needs a cause except for God". thus I am presenting a "special pleading"

Causality has only proved (Im pretty sure here) that if there is an EFFECT there must be a cause. I have not once claimed in this whole thread that God is an effect, which requires a cause for existence. rather I have claimed that He is the Cause.

Soo... the virtual particles are more of a special pleading. Im not saying "every effect needs a cause except for the God effect". Although the virtual particles seem to be implying "every effect needs a cause except the virtual particles" why is ther this special pleading?

Does cause need cause?

In a way... there is an effect... a bowling ball rolling down a hill. the cause? I pushed it. yet this effect can in fact cause other effects. the bowling ball could hit another bowling ball. yet if we continue on backwards with effect after effect causing effect after effect, there is ultimately no ultimate cause. And if there is no ultimate cause, how could there be any effects? How can a bowling ball start rolling down a hill if there is no cause for it? yet only simply an infinite amount of bowling balls which each have been set in motion by the one before it?

If an infinite amount of things back in time must happen BEFORE I can exist... how can I exist even now? it is necessary for there to be a beginning to the universe, otherwise there would be no middle.

I just wanted to point out that its effects which need cause. not cause which needs cause. to say "cause must have a cause" is a self contradiction. so yeah, I havent been presenting a "special pleading" 

ok yeah, I cant really argue anymore on here due to school... but I personally think this debate hasnt been a "train wreck".  Ive learned alot, and I havent had such an intellectual argument with atheists for a long time... most atheists Ive discussed with have simply had some slogans that they threw at me, then got mad and stormed away swearing...... hehehe that was fun. ;P


----------



## Muesli (Dec 8, 2011)

zmikecuber said:


> Ok, I have to step out of this thread, due to school... just wanted to make one point.
> 
> It seems to me that people are saying Im being "inconsistent" and that Im saying "everything needs a cause except for God". thus I am presenting a "special pleading"
> 
> ...


 
Of course it is special pleading. You say everything needs a cause, yet your God doesn't need a cause. You've not shown a good reason to why your God should be an exception. That's pretty much the definition of special pleading. 
You're saying that we should believe your thing and not telling us a good reason why, and that's why I don't believe you. I'm happy enough to just say I don't know instead of pretending.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 8, 2011)

So you're defining an Effect as an event that has another event preceeding it, and a cause is an event that has another event following from it? So all effects that arn't at the very end of the chain are also causes... and all causes that aren't at the very beginning of the chain are also effects? It's the exact same argument except you've reclassified 'first cause' as a 'cause that isn't also an effect'. Same argument, same list of fallacies.
Just to clear it up, your saying every cause is also an effect, except lets define one cause that isn't an effect... so not every cause is an effect. it's special pleading.


----------



## RyanO (Dec 8, 2011)

Your claim that the universe could not be created without god is unfounded. We don't know how the universe began. We know it must of involved a phenomenon that is quite a bit different than what we normally observe, but we don't know that it was supernatural. If you want to call this phenomenon god, that's fine but it's a rather meaningless statement. There's no reason to believe that the phenomenon that allowed for the existence of the universe is necessary now that the universe does exist. The "god" you're arguing for may have been an event, not a being.

I think a belief in god is fairly harmless as long as you don't try to personify god in any way. Problems occur when your god shares your values and hates the same things and people that you do. We can't know for certain if there is a god. If god does exist he hasn't given us any reasonable indication of what his plan is. Even if god exists, it's sensible to live your life as though he doesn't.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm just amazed that this thread is still gong. I got bored about 3 pages in when it first started, after my viewpoints were not considered, and all that was being said were the same arguments I've already heard a hundred times.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 8, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> I'm just amazed that this thread is still going. I got bored about 3 pages in when it first started, after my viewpoints were not considered, and all that was being said were the same arguments I've already heard a hundred times.


 
“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” ~Thomas Paine


----------



## ZamHalen (Dec 9, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> “Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” ~Thomas Paine


 
It's things like this I find unfavorable to quality discussion, as most atheists I have met, as I said, are some of the most unreasonable people I know.

Just remember you still trust scientific knowledge observed by religious people. (Gregor Mendel anyone?)


----------



## Muesli (Dec 9, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> It's things like this I find unfavorable to quality discussion, as most atheists I have met, as I said, are some of the most unreasonable people I know.
> 
> Just remember you still trust scientific knowledge observed by religious people. (Gregor Mendel anyone?)


 
Whilst I would have gladly given Specs a slap for what he just wrote (the trick is to not be an ass), what you wrote after is completely irrelevant. Just because the scientific knowledge was discovered by religious people bears no consequence to the truth of said religion. Nothing they discovered was because of their religion (and often in spite of it.).

It's entirely possible for people like Newton (a devout christian) to be genius in their field yet completely wrong in another (namely his theological views). For all we know he could have wiped his arse back to front. Does that make it right? Thankfully not.

It's an argument from authority and it's stupid.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 9, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Whilst I would have gladly given Specs a slap for what he just wrote (the trick is to not be an ass), what you wrote after is completely irrelevant. Just because the scientific knowledge was discovered by religious people bears no consequence to the truth of said religion. Nothing they discovered was because of their religion (and often in spite of it.).
> 
> It's entirely possible for people like Newton (a devout christian) to be genius in their field yet completely wrong in another (namely his theological views). For all we know he could have wiped his arse back to front. Does that make it right? Thankfully not.
> 
> It's an argument from authority and it's stupid.


 
Seconded.

If you wish to slap me, I would prefer that you do so with a large trout. Here, use this.







*awaits slapping expectantly*


----------



## Edward (Dec 9, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


----------



## Hershey (Dec 9, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> most atheists I have met, as I said, are some of the most unreasonable people I know.


 
How so?


----------



## Godmil (Dec 9, 2011)

What was the point in the ID link?
Do I need to dig out the Judges report from the Dover Trial?


----------



## ZamHalen (Dec 9, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Whilst I would have gladly given Specs a slap for what he just wrote (the trick is to not be an ass), what you wrote after is completely irrelevant. Just because the scientific knowledge was discovered by religious people bears no consequence to the truth of said religion. Nothing they discovered was because of their religion (and often in spite of it.).
> 
> It's entirely possible for people like Newton (a devout christian) to be genius in their field yet completely wrong in another (namely his theological views). For all we know he could have wiped his arse back to front. Does that make it right? Thankfully not.
> 
> It's an argument from authority and it's stupid.


 
I was trying to say that religious affiliation is irrelevant in "reason" as the principle found in his studies was based on on reasoning if you think about it.
It has little to do with religion and more to do with the connotation of his statement.
@Hershey
I mean seriously unreasonable, straight out acting badly, causing harm to both themselves and others on multiple levels.(Not religious wise but just the way they are towards others).In all reality most of their arguments involve God just being another authority figure and absolutely nothing else, which I don't believe is an entirely valid argument as there needs to be just a little bit more thought put into your argument than just rebellious attitude.(I mean come on, anyone can be rebellious if they wanted to be no matter what).

I don't think my argument suffices but I'll expand it tomorrow.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 9, 2011)

Muesli said:


> For all we know he could have wiped his arse back to front. Does that make it right? Thankfully not.


 
I'm incredibly curious, what's wrong with doing that? As long as said area becomes void of left over material, who cares how it's done or to say it's done correctly or not?


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Dec 9, 2011)

Arguments between Theists and Atheists are quite simple. 

Man-kind cannot explain everything around us with science. 

*Atheists say that everything can be explained with science, it's just we haven't figured a way to do it...yet.*

_Theists say that everything which we cannot explain with science is in existence as a result of some kind of supreme being/s. (I do not acknowledge creationists as Theists. They are in their own separate category of "Nut-job"). 
_
Then there are all sorts of counter arguments to that. But what they basically get down to is this:

*Atheist: There is this infinite line of cause and effect which resulted in us being here today typing about this topic. It is kinda like a line of dominoes. We know about some of the dominoes, and we know other ones are there...we just are not sure which colour it is. The whole idea of an infinite line of cause and effect is very confusing for Humans because we are mortal, but it is possible. *

_Theist: There is not an infinite chain of cause and effect. It goes back to just before the big bang (NOTE: Those who deny basic scientific and common knowledge like this are not theists, but rather nut-jobs) when the universe was smaller than a tea spoon. After setting up his/her long domino line, god (or gods, I am working with the main 3 here...sorry Hindu's) flicked the first one and he watched them go. _

*Atheist: Ahhhh! But where did he come from! This god of yours! There is an infinite chain of cause and effect! Because your God is infinite isn't he!*

_Theist: Mmmm. I guess so. In that case, God existing fits perfectly into your views right! Because his creation is an infinite domino line!_

*Atheist: Damn...I guess it does. But still, the chance of the "god domino" existing is pretty small, as there are other ways the domino line could go! *

Someone who has reasonable intelligence: Guys! Stop arguing! You cannot prove either of your points 100%. It is up to the individual to decide which one they think is more likely, or just have faith in one of them. This should be an individual choice and it's all about personal preference. Atheist and Theist debates are like GuHong and ZhanChi debates. No-one will ever win!


Also. This thread is also about religion, and religion is SO MUCH more than believing in a supreme being/s. Religion teaches us what is right and wrong, and tells us how to live a good, life. I'm an Atheist, but I think Jesus was a great guy, and he said some great things, which you would have to be a totally *****ic, stuck up atheist to ignore...


----------



## Muesli (Dec 9, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> I was trying to say that religious affiliation is irrelevant in "reason" as the principle found in his studies was based on on reasoning if you think about it.
> It has little to do with religion and more to do with the connotation of his statement.


 
Then we are in agreement... Your previous statement read as if you thought that religion was a factor in their discovery. That's what I was objecting to.



Tyjet66 said:


> I'm incredibly curious, what's wrong with doing that? As long as said area becomes void of left over material, who cares how it's done or to say it's done correctly or not?



Depends what gender you are...


----------



## Muesli (Dec 9, 2011)

EeeeeWarne said:


> Arguments between Theists and Atheists are quite simple.
> 
> Man-kind cannot explain everything around us with science.


False. We will be able to.



EeeeeWarne said:


> *Atheists say that everything can be explained with science, it's just we haven't figured a way to do it...yet.*


Untrue. Atheism doesn't say anything about what the person actually says beyond "I don't believe in god". (AgentKuo corrected me here)



EeeeeWarne said:


> _Theists say that everything which we cannot explain with science is in existence as a result of some kind of supreme being/s. (I do not acknowledge creationists as Theists. They are in their own separate category of "Nut-job").
> _


DEISTS think this. Theists believe in a personal God who helps them in their lives and listens to their prayers. Learn what you're saying.



EeeeeWarne said:


> *Atheist: There is this infinite line of cause and effect which resulted in us being here today typing about this topic. It is kinda like a line of dominoes. We know about some of the dominoes, and we know other ones are there...we just are not sure which colour it is. The whole idea of an infinite line of cause and effect is very confusing for Humans because we are mortal, but it is possible. *


It's very disingenuous to say "Atheists" think this. The only thing that Atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a God. 
Some Atheists might think what you wrote, but I don't. I don't claim to know.



EeeeeWarne said:


> _Theist: There is not an infinite chain of cause and effect. It goes back to just before the big bang (NOTE: Those who deny basic scientific and common knowledge like this are not theists, but rather nut-jobs) when the universe was smaller than a tea spoon. After setting up his/her long domino line, god (or gods, I am working with the main 3 here...sorry Hindu's) flicked the first one and he watched them go. _


Got any evidence for that?



EeeeeWarne said:


> *Atheist: Ahhhh! But where did he come from! This god of yours! There is an infinite chain of cause and effect! Because your God is infinite isn't he!*


That question is a perfectly valid response from my position. From the strawman that you deliberately set up it obviously fails. Pr0tip: When debating, attack the position that your opponent actually holds. If you don't you look like an ass.

The rest of this little story is just fallout from the last 2 points, so it's pointless to address.




> Someone who has reasonable intelligence: Guys! Stop arguing! You cannot prove either of your points 100%. It is up to the individual to decide which one they think is more likely, or just have faith in one of them. This should be an individual choice and it's all about personal preference. Atheist and Theist debates are like GuHong and ZhanChi debates. No-one will ever win!


Sure, you can believe in these things. That's your right. But you can't expect to go around saying them without people calling you on your crap. That's all I'm doing, that's all my position is. I never, EVER, make affirmations of truth as regards to the start of the universe because I quite simply don't know. 

Nobody does, so why do theists say they do? Because as far as I can tell they liked what they read in a dusty old book and decided that it was fact. I don't buy it.

And you analogy fails. A more apt one would be someone just telling me that they'd just got a 4.12 second solve, and I had to believe them because they're _'honestly telling the truth!_



EeeeeWarne said:


> Religion teaches us what is right and wrong,


Nope.



EeeeeWarne said:


> and tells us how to live a good, life.


Meh. Depends what parts you read. 



EeeeeWarne said:


> I'm an Atheist, but I think Jesus was a great guy, and he said some great things, which you would have to be a totally *****ic, stuck up atheist to ignore...


 
>implying there's evidence that Jesus was real.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 9, 2011)

No part of being an atheist says anything about their views on science.


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Dec 9, 2011)

@Museli: While I agree that there are no set guidelines which Theists and Atheists must follow other than basic definitions, I used typical arguments which they use. 

In terms of


> Meh. Depends what parts you read.


 - read what?


Also, While there is no concrete evidence of Jesus existing, there is evidence that he was around. The question is, was he some amazing healer who came back from the dead? No. And even if he didn't exist, the stories of him and the things which it is recorded he said made sense and gave many tips on how to live. I still don't get how I imply his existence as a physical figure. I can say Captain Jack Sparrow is really cool without acknowledging that he is a fictional character.



> > Man-kind cannot explain everything around us with science.
> 
> 
> False. We will be able to.


 
How is my statement false? I did not say "and it will stay this way for all time". I was just stating, that, at this moment in time, not everything can be explained with science by humans. We know very little about anti-matter for example. I am not saying that everything cannot be explained with science (what I believe).



> Got any evidence for that?


. Evidence for what? The Big Bang, the great big domino line? I make so many statements in that section you were referencing too. In terms of it being the general thoughts of all Theists...no, that is not the case. It is just a common argument my religious friends have made.

Also, you seem to have missed the main point of my post. A questioning of "why are you arguing about this!", "why do you care". You could simply have replied with "I have a passion for Philosophy".

@AgentKuo: That is correct. I was stereotyping


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 9, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.


I came THIS close to living in China and studying Shaolin martial arts (they are Buddhists) but the monks I met, were all quite rude, being judgemental and 'snooty' for want of a better word. One of the founding beliefs for Buddhism, is that life is a bad thing, and we should get it over with, quickly; I just don't agree. Nowadays, I'm much more akin to the Zen-Buddhists, and/or Taoists. Yin-Yang all the way, baby!
And when it comes to you guys, dominating the thread, it seems that you're both arguing a point neither can prove. But, I believe if you look at the possible origins of things, there is only one answer. Things cannot be infinite, as otherwise, we would be able to perceive it as such, there being no boundries, as all things would happen at once; therefore, things started, and as there is no possible way for things to start by them selves (or would you like to argue a new definition of 'life' as we know it) it must have been started, and not by the definition of God as we now know, but by some quite different entity. I can't see how there can be another reasonable conclusion, as particles just 'popping' into existence, still sounds like a very un-scientific principle to me. But I don't really care, I've been blessed to have this chance to be poor and hungry. To quote Sancho Panza (a close and personal friend of mine) 'I was born into this world, naked and crying; if I leave the same way, I'll know things are to rights.' Maybe, we should all get together, and sit around the fire, where we can talk properly ...


----------



## Igora (Dec 9, 2011)

EeeeeWarne said:


> Also, While there is no concrete evidence of Jesus existing, there is evidence that he was around.


This is a direct contradiction. There is no evidence outside of the bible that there was a "Jesus" of either mortal or supernatural descent that claimed to be the son of God.



EeeeeWarne said:


> How is my statement false? I did not say "and it will stay this way for all time". I was just stating, that, at this moment in time, not everything can be explained with science by humans. We know very little about anti-matter for example. I am not saying that everything cannot be explained with science (what I believe).


There is a very big difference between cannot (is not able to) and does not.



EeeeeWarne said:


> Evidence for what? The Big Bang, the great big domino line? I make so many statements in that section you were referencing too. In terms of it being the general thoughts of all Theists...no, that is not the case. It is just a common argument my religious friends have made.


I am going to say it was referencing the domino line that began from god(s).


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

Igora said:


> This is a direct contradiction. There is no evidence outside of the bible that there was a "Jesus" of either mortal or supernatural descent that claimed to be the son of God.


 
There is indeed 'evidence' of the same calibre as the bible in external sources, such as writings from Flavius and Pliny the Younger. 

I'm not too sure if anything more solid exists than these accounts (which were post-Jesus' life).


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 9, 2011)

Yes, there is very intellectually sound evidence of Jesus' existence. The question is not whether or not he existed, it is the classification of his existence. Was he a liar, a lunatic, or Lord of the universe?


----------



## Godmil (Dec 9, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> it is the classification of his existence. Was he a liar, a lunatic, or Lord of the universe?


 Or he was entirely reasonable and his story got exaggerated way out of proportion.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 9, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Or he was entirely reasonable and his story got exaggerated way out of proportion.


 
Yes, that is a possible stance. A popular one as well. And, of course , one I disagree with.


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 9, 2011)

For views and sources of the existence of Jesus, check the Nag Hammadi scrolls (gnostic testaments) the council of Nicaea, the bloodline of Soloman, and all the references in other religious writings, namely the Qu'ran etc. But remember, nobody alive speaks the language anymore (Aramaic mostly) so take the translations with a pinch of salt; for me, I think he did exist, but as you'll see from references in the council of Nicaea documents, his vision/teachings/inane babble, or whatever you wish it to be referred as, was basterdised in an attempt to attain peace. So, was he a collective hero, made by the story tellers of the day, an outrageous manipulator, feigning relious philosophy, for an easy ride, or perhaps, he was a pretty cool guy, trying to draw together a seperated peoples, under one religious ideal ... or something else entirely ... I don't know, do you? ... What I do believe, is that his words were changed from 'I, am the son of, God' meaning, so are we all, to 'I, am the son of, God' follow me, or go to hell! Just goes to show, the press almost never gets its story straight. But hey, it's not like I've been studying this for over six years or anything ... #achem#


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 9, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> -snip-


 
I would have loved to read that, but I couldn't understand most of it. It all felt like one long sentence with disconnected meanings and jumps in the topic. =\


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 9, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> For views and sources of the existence of Jesus, check the Nag Hammadi scrolls (gnostic testaments) the council of Nicaea, the bloodline of Soloman, and all the references in other religious writings, namely the Qu'ran etc. But remember, nobody alive speaks the language anymore (Aramaic mostly) so take the translations with a pinch of salt; for me, I think he did exist, but as you'll see from references in the council of Nicaea documents, his vision/teachings/inane babble, or whatever you wish it to be referred as, was basterdised in an attempt to attain peace. So, was he a collective hero, made by the story tellers of the day, an outrageous manipulator, feigning relious philosophy, for an easy ride, or perhaps, he was a pretty cool guy, trying to draw together a seperated peoples, under one religious ideal ... or something else entirely ... I don't know, do you? ... What I do believe, is that his words were changed from 'I, am the son of, God' meaning, so are we all, to 'I, am the son of, God' follow me, or go to hell! Just goes to show, the press almost never gets its story straight. But hey, it's not like I've been studying this for over six years or anything ... #achem#



I'm usually good at deciphering train wreck posts, but this may have exceeded my abilities. 

Seems like you're trying to say that there's decent evidence of his existence but nothing to confirm what he ACTUALLY did/stood for, which is a point already made in this thread without unnecessary words.


----------



## RyanO (Dec 9, 2011)

Were any historical acounts of Jesus written during his lifetime? It seems he just wasn't that important of a figure until after his death.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 9, 2011)

EeeeeWarne said:


> Religion teaches us what is right and wrong, and tells us how to live a good, life.


 
yes, but religion is more of believing God. 
if God told me to kill, I would.
But fortunately, God is good. 
(don't worry, you are safe with me. lol) 

I don't think atheists would understand what I just wrote, 
and I think some theists wouldn't too.

Christianity is much much deeper than what everybody thinks. I was an atheist once in the past. just saying. 
(and yes, some atheist are theist in the past) 

and I don't think I need to explain, I know you will have an answer for everything I will post. 
I don't want to argue. 

peace!


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 9, 2011)

When I look into the life of Jesus, it's pretty much always from a mythology standpoint. I look at the mythos, and take it as nothing more than a story. For me, this makes it a lot more interesting, and a lot more open for interpretation. When you get even deeper into the ideologies that he went to the East and studied Buddhism and things like that, and then going into Gnostic texts, with things about Judas sitting on the left hand of god because he was truly Jesus' most loyal disciple. Just things like that, looking at it from a more mythological standpoint, interests me.



The Bloody Talon said:


> yes, but religion is more of believing God.
> if God told me to kill, I would.


In the words of the great Beavis, "Whoa!"


> But fortunately, God is good.
> (don't worry, you are safe with me. lol)


Debatable. 



> I don't think atheists would understand what I just wrote,
> and I think some theists wouldn't too.


Maybe if you explained it, people would understand it.



> Christianity is much much deeper than what everybody thinks. I was an atheist once in the past. just saying.
> (and yes, some atheist are theist in the past)


Being that I was a Christian for about 7 years of my life, I would have to say, overall, it's not much deeper than everyone thinks, although, I can only go based on what I think, and what I know from when I was a Christian. But again, you're keeping your statements very ambiguous, almost as if you want people to inquire. So please, explain.



> and I don't think I need to explain, I know you will have an answer for everything I will post.


You gotta explain. If you don't explain, then you're telling us nothing. Just making ambiguous statements. 


> I don't want to argue.


Then don't.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 10, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> When I look into the life of Jesus, it's pretty much always from a mythology standpoint. I look at the mythos, and take it as nothing more than a story. For me, this makes it a lot more interesting, and a lot more open for interpretation. When you get even deeper into the ideologies that he went to the East and studied Buddhism and things like that, and then going into Gnostic texts, with things about Judas sitting on the left hand of god because he was truly Jesus' most loyal disciple. Just things like that, looking at it from a more mythological standpoint, interests me.
> 
> 
> In the words of the great Beavis, "Whoa!"
> ...


 


The Bloody Talon said:


> and I don't think I need to explain, I know you will have an answer for *EVERYTHING* I will post.


also, I don't care if you believe in God or not.
no need for argument.
I was just stating my opinion too.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 10, 2011)

Why did you quote me, and then not respond?


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 10, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> Why did you quote me, and then not respond?


  
read again. 
the second quotation is not from you.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 10, 2011)

The Bloody Talon said:


> read again.
> the second quotation is not from you.


I didn't "have an answer" for anything you posted. I had a question for everything you posted.
There's no point in making ambiguous statements if you don't want people to inquire about them.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 10, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> I didn't "have an answer" for anything you posted. I had a question for everything you posted.
> There's no point in making ambiguous statements if you don't want people to inquire about them.


 
you replied so you did answer. (or your definition to the word "answer" is limited?)
and your answer are in questions.
and I don't need to answer your questions. 
(oh wait, what is your question?)

I'm not making an ambiguous statement. (well, ambiguous to you)
it just happened you don't understand.
and I won't explain 'cause I don't need you to understand. 
you will have your own opinions to my opinions and this will never end.

as I said,
I just stated my opinion. I don't want to argue with this topic
I just stated my opinion.
I repeat if you really can't understand this.

I JUST STATED MY OPINION
I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE

say your opinions about my opinions if you want. 
just don't make me explain. because this will never end.

Ignore what I posted if you need to. I don't care


peace.


----------



## AgentKuo (Dec 10, 2011)

"I have a secret, guess what it is. I'm not gonna tell you if you're right, though."

It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's pointless. Why even post it?


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 10, 2011)

AgentKuo said:


> "I have a secret, guess what it is. I'm not gonna tell you if you're right, though."
> 
> It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's pointless. Why even post it?


 
*"I have a secret, guess what it is. I'm not gonna tell you if you're right, though."*
WHO TOLD YOU THIS? wahhh!
o wait, it is your translation to someones post? I haven't seen that
nice! keep up the good work!


----------



## RyanO (Dec 10, 2011)

The Bloody Talon said:


> if God told me to kill, I would.


This makes you a crazy person. 

Unfortunately, God does instruct Christians to kill on his behalf. The Bible states that homosexuals, among others, are to be put to death.


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 10, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I would have loved to read that, but I couldn't understand most of it. It all felt like one long sentence with disconnected meanings and jumps in the topic. =\


It all makes sense, and I believe the grammar is fine; I'm not going to do your research for you. It is about interpreting the actual evidence we have, for the existence of, Jesus.


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 10, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> I'm usually good at deciphering train wreck posts, but this may have exceeded my abilities.
> 
> Seems like you're trying to say that there's decent evidence of his existence but nothing to confirm what he ACTUALLY did/stood for, which is a point already made in this thread without unnecessary words.


I'm saying these are best sources I know of for reference; they cover what he said and did (roughly) and I was also offering view-points for discussion. However, if you're going to be rude, by calling posts 'train-wrecks' because you don't like or understand them, I don't see why I should entertain you. And perhaps you could point out where I've been grandiloquent, or where the post is repeating others. Or maybe, I should refrain from a detached conversation about things, which most historians cannot confirm or deny?


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 10, 2011)

RyanO said:


> This makes you a crazy person.
> 
> Unfortunately, God does instruct Christians to kill on his behalf. The Bible states that homosexuals, among others, are to be put to death.


 
yes, cool right? 
as I told you, you won't understand.
wait, did He told me to kill them? hahahahaha


anyway, 
maybe I should explain why I don't want to explain.
and the main reason is, I won't win this argument.

you see, this topic is about atheism and theism.
and of course, all of you will explain and try to prove your point is by using your *logic*.

but me, as a Christian, I live by *faith*.
(I use logic too, so no worries)
I believe in miracles, I believe God can make me walk in water, I believe He can cure the sick with His Words.
I believe He can calm the storm with His Command.
and yes, you won't believe it cause it is not logical.
and in a battle of logic, I will certainly lose.
so what is the purpose of explaining if I know that you would think that I would lose in the end?
all I can do here is state my opinion, and you can ignore my opinion if you want.


4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

yes, another Bible passage you could talk about.  
enjoy.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Dec 10, 2011)

Cube-Fu said:


> For views and sources of the existence of Jesus, check the Nag Hammadi scrolls (gnostic testaments) the council of Nicaea, the bloodline of Soloman, and all the references in other religious writings, namely the Qu'ran etc. But remember, nobody alive speaks the language anymore (Aramaic mostly) so take the translations with a pinch of salt; for me, I think he did exist, but as you'll see from references in the council of Nicaea documents, his vision/teachings/inane babble, or whatever you wish it to be referred as, was bastardized in an attempt to attain peace. So, was he a collective hero, made by the story tellers of the day, an outrageous manipulator, feigning religious philosophy, for an easy ride, or perhaps, he was a pretty cool guy, trying to draw together a separated peoples, under one religious ideal ... or something else entirely ... I don't know, do you? ... What I do believe, is that his words were changed from 'I, am the son of, God' meaning, so are we all, to 'I, am the son of, God' follow me, or go to hell! Just goes to show, the press almost never gets its story straight. But hey, it's not like I've been studying this for over six years or anything ... #achem#


I really liked this post. I can definitely tell you did your research! Also, I could be wrong, but I think Specs112 was giving you a compliment but also basically saying that the point you were trying to make can be made (and was made) without even having to include so much detail. But again, I do feel that such detail is definitely necessary for good discussion.



The Bloody Talon said:


> 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.
> 
> yes, another Bible passage you could talk about.
> enjoy.


 
Here's a commentary I heard in my Bible as Literature Course (verse by verse):

The serpent was not Satan. He was a symbol for wisdom, knowledge and immortality. It is the voice inside of all of us that says, “I want to know for myself, I am not happy not doing something that I want to experience, even if I am deliberately told not to do so. Heck with that, I want to.”


6. The fact that the woman is shown to eat of the fruit of the tree first might imply that women have a hyperactive sexuality.
7. Adam and his woman’s choice was not a choice of morality. Instead, it was a choice whether to grow or not. They realized that they were naked (thus gaining experience) and became ashamed because they consciously knew that YHWH disapproved of eating of the forbidden fruit. The fig tree leaves clothing represents how, when a human is shamed, tries to cover himself/herself from the anxiety of being found out when doing something that is not approved by others.
14. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things. This was probably written to answer children’s question of why snakes move on their bellies (an ideology).
15. This is an ideology for why humans are scared of snakes. It is also symbolism for hostility between wisdom and the human race. It is only when you are bitten by wisdom that you acquire it.
16. “He will rule over you” is an ideology for the reality of the people who produced this text. In that culture, male dominance was there. (It also may imply that women are horny). This is an ideology for why woman are in severe pain (and maybe even die) during childbirth.
17. This is an ideology for why when children grow up (become experienced), they must learn to do for themselves. Children come into their adulthood through labor and sweat.
19. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things. This was probably written to answer children’s question of why we die (an ideology).
23. You have to sacrifice delight (Eden) in order to become experienced. Notice that this myth never says that Adam and his woman sinned. They became experienced.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 11, 2011)

cmowla said:


> I really liked this post. I can definitely tell you did your research! Also, I could be wrong, but I think Specs112 was giving you a compliment but also basically saying that the point you were trying to make can be made (and was made) without even having to include so much detail. But again, I do feel that such detail is definitely necessary for good discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
nice one! 
where is the interpretation for verse 5?
I think you skipped it.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Dec 11, 2011)

Oh, when I said "verse by verse," I meant that I wrote the verse number by each interpretation. My teacher didn't mention anything about verse 5. However, I think the interpretation is similar to the one next to verse 23 (that's why I think he didn't mention it).


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Dec 11, 2011)

cmowla said:


> Oh, when I said "verse by verse," I meant that I wrote the verse number by each interpretation. My teacher didn't mention anything about verse 5. However, I think the interpretation is similar to the one next to verse 23 (that's why I think he didn't mention it).


 
aww... that's the highlight of my post.
anyway, thanks for this information.


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 11, 2011)

cmowla said:


> I really liked this post. I can definitely tell you did your research! Also, I could be wrong, but I think Specs112 was giving you a compliment but also basically saying that the point you were trying to make can be made (and was made) without even having to include so much detail. But again, I do feel that such detail is definitely necessary for good discussion.


Thank-you; I'm not sure if he was complimenting, or commenting, but I'm glad you liked it. When it comes to detail, there's really very little. I could talk about it for days, and have done in the past.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 11, 2011)

cmowla said:


> You have to sacrifice delight (Eden) in order to become experienced. Notice that this myth never says that Adam and his woman sinned. They became experienced.


 
Ignorance is bliss?


----------



## Cube-Fu (Dec 11, 2011)

Muesli said:


> Ignorance is bliss?


Usually, but then there are things like progressive disease. Or being ignorant of destructive personality traits. Not bliss at all.


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 11, 2011)

I would like to punch in the face anyone who endorses the idea that ignorance is bliss as a positive thing.


----------

