Jump to content

atheists and religious holidays


Recommended Posts

I don't know, but nothing is impossible with God.

 

Now wait, it was Satan not god who took him on the mountain....

 

So? You're a skeptic. If the light bulb wasn't invented, and you had this idea, you try once, twice, three times...5984 times, 5985 times. Wouldn't you give up in your skepticism far before the over 10 000 tries that it took Edison? Wouldn't you say "I'm skeptical that the next one will work, so I'm skeptical that it is possible" on number 20? To tell you the truth (I'm not very skeptical) I would give up on number 30, or 40. Tell the truth. When would you give up?

 

Total strawman, it may have taken him that long to figure out how to get a filament to last but he knew the idea was sound.

 

I'm sorry, but the only person on that list that I know is Adolf Hitler.

Evil.

Non-Christian.

 

Hitler was not only a Christian, a Roman Catholic, but a Creationist, he believed the bible was the infallible word of god...

Genesis and all....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Trying to equate a skeptical outlook on exclusive, unfalisifable claims of an absolute diety with a disbelief in unlikely events and then equating that strawman argument with a lack of innovative abil

I don't know. I'm just guessing.

Who knows, an earthquake, maybe it exploded, and it is now a giant rock. Who knows? "Given the difficulties humanity faced getting to the top of Everest, how did biblical era men climb it? How did th

Not true, if not for skeptics we would all think the earth is flat and covered by a crystal dome under water.

Not true, skeptics (well, depending on how strong of skeptics) would be too skeptical to think that the earth is round, and when the time came to prove that the earth is round, they would be too skeptical to send a space shuttle to make clear proof that the earth is round, they would be too skeptical to try it, because of its dangerousness.

 

 

 

Hitler was not only a Christian, a Roman Catholic, but a Creationist, he believed the bible was the infallible word of god...

Genesis and all....

However, did he ask for forgiveness? I don't think so, but if he (which, that would mean that he thought that what he did was wrong) did, then he is not evil. If he didn't, he is neither a Christian, nor is he not evil.

 

You need to look up the meaning of 'strawman' there strawman...

 

P.S. Yes I'm a skeptic and yes, I happen to hold 2 patents so skeptics can indeed be inventors!

Yes, things you know will work (probably). What were those patents?

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, did he ask for forgiveness? I don't think so, but if he (which, that would mean that he thought that what he did was wrong) did, then he is not evil. If he didn't, he is neither a Christian, nor is he not evil.

God is perfect, so He would not appoint an evil man to rule. Hence Hitler was not evil according to Christianity.

 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."-Romans 1: 1-5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, skeptics (well, depending on how strong of skeptics) would be too skeptical to think that the earth is round, and when the time came to prove that the earth is round, they would be too skeptical to send a space shuttle to make clear proof that the earth is round, they would be too skeptical to try it, because of its dangerousness.

 

Sounds like you equate cowardly with being a skeptic.

 

However, did he ask for forgiveness? I don't think so, but if he (which, that would mean that he thought that what he did was wrong) did, then he is not evil. If he didn't, he is neither a Christian, nor is he not evil.

 

How can you say that, did you know him personally? You are the very embodiment of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

Yes, things you know will work (probably). What were those patents?

 

And then you have to be insulting....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I'm just guessing.

 

Trying to equate a skeptical outlook on exclusive, unfalisifable claims of an absolute diety with a disbelief in unlikely events and then equating that strawman argument with a lack of innovative ability is entirely intellectually offensive.

 

The chance of rolling three sixes with three dice is less than 1%. You seem to be trying to say that if you don't believe is God you can't believe in three sixes and therefore an atheist can't roll dice until it occurs - which is absurd.

 

As a phylogeneticist - most of the reconstructions we carry out have an extremely large number of possible outcomes. The initial expectation for the most likely reconstruction is extremely low and experiments must be run for many millions of replications to ensure that all possibilities have been considered. The philosophy that insists on the consideration of many unlikely possible outcomes is as a direct product of the skeptical and thorough nature of the scientific method and a direct contradiction to the acceptance of positive outcomes based on faith. If we designed experiments based around the premise of an a priori belief in the outcome, there'd be no reason to use the extensive parameter spaces which we do.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I don't know. I'm just guessing.

 

Which is the whole problem in this thread. You need to stop shooting from the hip, and start following the proper rules of a discussion in this forum.

 

Please try to avoid going to the personal claims, they're irrelevant. If you think someone's done you wrong, use the report button.

 

Other than that, I think you would do best to stop forcing your own definitions on other people, and start listening to the claims they're giving you. You won't convince anyone by repeating yourself or by ignoring points that were made, or by just guessing.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, but nothing is impossible with God.

If this is true, then why is there suffering in the world?

 

If God can do anything, then He could make the universe so that suffering is impossible, and yet still achieve exactly what it is he wants. The only counter to this argument is to reject the God of the bible.

 

You would have to either admit that there are impossible things, even for God and if that is the case, then the Christian God no longer conforms to what the bible says (ie: God is not the God of the bible - and Christianity is falsified).

 

Or, you admit that God is evil and wants us to suffer unnecessarily.

 

Or, does not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true, then why is there suffering in the world?

 

If God can do anything, then He could make the universe so that suffering is impossible, and yet still achieve exactly what it is he wants. The only counter to this argument is to reject the God of the bible.

 

You would have to either admit that there are impossible things, even for God and if that is the case, then the Christian God no longer conforms to what the bible says (ie: God is not the God of the bible - and Christianity is falsified).

 

Or, you admit that God is evil and wants us to suffer unnecessarily.

 

Or, does not exist.

 

He has chosen not to. Why, I don't know. You, nor me know enough of why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has chosen not to. Why, I don't know. You, nor me know enough of why.

Here is a thought experiment:

 

You see someone torturing someone and you ask them why they are doing that. They answer: 'Because I choose to do so".

 

How would you then view this person: Good or Evil?

 

I think most people would consider them evil.

 

And now another thought experiment:

 

You read a story about the Ancient Greek God of the Underworld (Pluto) torturing someone: You ask Him why he is doing that. He answers: "Because I choose to do so".

 

Would you think that God is evil.

 

Apply this to any entity. If they don't have to cause suffering to someone, but they do because they choose to, then universally, they would be considered evil.

 

Thus, if any God chooses to cause suffering, then they are evil. It doesn't matter what their reason is, if they could choose not to cause suffering, but instead choose to cause suffering, then they are by definition evil.

 

If the Christian God is all powerful, then they could make the universe without suffering and still achieve whatever it is they wanted to achieve, if they can't then they are not all powerful and the Christian God is supposed to be all powerful.

 

So, the only reason that suffering is in the universe (if you believe that the Christian God created the universe that is) is because God chose to cause suffering. It is unnecessary in achieving whatever ends God wants to achieve as being all powerful, the presence or absence of suffering can not prevent that.

 

Thus, the only reason that suffering exists, is because God wanted us to suffer for the sake of suffering. This not to to teach us lessons, not to allow forgiveness, not because we sinned, or any other reason. All the other reasons could have been circumvented by God without violating anything like free will, or the ultimate ends He wants for the universe (or any single person - or even particle of matter if you want to go that far).

 

The only reason that an all powerful entity would create a universe with suffering in it is if that entity want us to suffer.

 

Now, think back to the start of this post. In each of those situations, the reason they were causing suffering is because they chose to and for no other reason. But it would be universally accepted, that an entity, whether a man or a God, that chose to cause suffering when it was not necessary was considered evil.

 

So, where does this put the Christian God? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm a skeptic and yes, I happen to hold 2 patents so skeptics can indeed be inventors!

Yes, things you know will work (probably). What were those patents?

And then you have to be insulting....

That's not insulting, it's still good to have a patent, even if you knew all along that it would work.

How do you know he knew all along it would work?

I don't know. I'm just guessing.

!

Moderator Note

njaohnt, this is a recurring theme with your posts, taking wild guesses and then stating them as fact to use in your arguments. This thread is rife with examples of this. Up to this point, the membership has done an amazing job of staying on top of your poorly crafted arguments and lack of rigor in discussing this subject, and I felt that any staff remarks would be redundant.

 

But I reread the thread and had to lend official support to what everyone here has been telling you. Your arguments are narrow-minded, lack even the barest support from observational evidence and show a complete lack of understanding of the difference between opinion and assertion.

 

Clearly, no one is learning anything from reading your posts (except about you personally, which they have been good enough to refrain from commenting about), and you haven't learned anything from anyone here. You don't show even a little interest in research on what's being given to you (if Hitler was the only person you knew from Arete's list of people, why didn't you bother to look some of them up?). I think you should truly question whether you're spending your time at the right site. We're going to continue to discuss and learn, and it's obvious those items are NOT on your agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a thought experiment:

 

You see someone torturing someone and you ask them why they are doing that. They answer: 'Because I choose to do so".

 

How would you then view this person: Good or Evil?

 

I think most people would consider them evil.

 

And now another thought experiment:

 

You read a story about the Ancient Greek God of the Underworld (Pluto) torturing someone: You ask Him why he is doing that. He answers: "Because I choose to do so".

 

Would you think that God is evil.

 

Apply this to any entity. If they don't have to cause suffering to someone, but they do because they choose to, then universally, they would be considered evil.

 

Thus, if any God chooses to cause suffering, then they are evil. It doesn't matter what their reason is, if they could choose not to cause suffering, but instead choose to cause suffering, then they are by definition evil.

 

If the Christian God is all powerful, then they could make the universe without suffering and still achieve whatever it is they wanted to achieve, if they can't then they are not all powerful and the Christian God is supposed to be all powerful.

 

So, the only reason that suffering is in the universe (if you believe that the Christian God created the universe that is) is because God chose to cause suffering. It is unnecessary in achieving whatever ends God wants to achieve as being all powerful, the presence or absence of suffering can not prevent that.

 

Thus, the only reason that suffering exists, is because God wanted us to suffer for the sake of suffering. This not to to teach us lessons, not to allow forgiveness, not because we sinned, or any other reason. All the other reasons could have been circumvented by God without violating anything like free will, or the ultimate ends He wants for the universe (or any single person - or even particle of matter if you want to go that far).

 

The only reason that an all powerful entity would create a universe with suffering in it is if that entity want us to suffer.

 

Now, think back to the start of this post. In each of those situations, the reason they were causing suffering is because they chose to and for no other reason. But it would be universally accepted, that an entity, whether a man or a God, that chose to cause suffering when it was not necessary was considered evil.

 

So, where does this put the Christian God? :o

You're not making sense… sort of.

You don't know how the world outside our world works.

Hard to explain why, but I can sort of figure it out why.

 

!

Moderator Note

njaohnt, this is a recurring theme with your posts, taking wild guesses and then stating them as fact to use in your arguments. This thread is rife with examples of this. Up to this point, the membership has done an amazing job of staying on top of your poorly crafted arguments and lack of rigor in discussing this subject, and I felt that any staff remarks would be redundant.

 

But I reread the thread and had to lend official support to what everyone here has been telling you. Your arguments are narrow-minded, lack even the barest support from observational evidence and show a complete lack of understanding of the difference between opinion and assertion.

 

Clearly, no one is learning anything from reading your posts (except about you personally, which they have been good enough to refrain from commenting about), and you haven't learned anything from anyone here. You don't show even a little interest in research on what's being given to you (if Hitler was the only person you knew from Arete's list of people, why didn't you bother to look some of them up?). I think you should truly question whether you're spending your time at the right site. We're going to continue to discuss and learn, and it's obvious those items are NOT on your agenda.

Why may I ask that you put that in a red Modnote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to understand why Moontanman feels as strongly as he does against fundamental christianity.

Here's the thing, though. After you've been around these discussions for long enough you begin to realize that the error of thought and logical fallacies are not limited just to the fundamentalists. Even those rather intelligent, very rational, and mostly reasonable theists base their belief position on exactly the same unfounded, meritless, and ultimately rotten foundation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why may I ask that you put that in a red Modnote?

 

!

Moderator Note

Modnotes (both green and red and sometimes no colour at all, although that is rare these days) are there to indicate that we are acting in our role as moderators and our statements are those of representatives of the site.

 

Green are normally helpful tips, first offences and similar, red are as you might expect a little more serious, when users have shown a complete disregard for the rules, green ones should not paid attention to, red ones followed.

 

It is also implied and often stated that replying to modnotes is not advisable, arguing with them is severely frowned upon. You agreed to follow our rules when you signed up and access and use of scienceforums.net is not a right.

 

Phi is one of the most reasonable people I have had the fortune to meet, I would heed his words.

 

Please do not respond to this modnote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, though. After you've been around these discussions for long enough you begin to realize that the error of thought and logical fallacies are not limited just to the fundamentalists. Even those rather intelligent, very rational, and mostly reasonable theists base their belief position on exactly the same unfounded, meritless, and ultimately rotten foundation.

I never really understood how someone could believe in the specifics of the bible, or Koran, or in any kind of personal god, but I don't find it that hard to understand how someone could believe in a higher power.

 

I used to consider myself as kind of a 'light' theist. That is, I believed in 'god', but had no more concept of him than that he was responsible for the universe. I didn't see him in action, didn't think he paid attention to me, and saw no reason to believe anyone else could.

 

What brought me to this 'light' theist postion was science. The laws of physics just seem so complex, so precise, and yet all of this complexity seems to come from some very simple properties of the very smallest components of the universe. Even the fact that there are some laws rather than no laws at all seems strange.

 

So it always seemed to me to be a kind of 50/50 proposition. Maybe something did create all this, or maybe something didn't. I have no evidence either way, so I just kind of leaned toward the position that seemed right to me.

 

I spend most of my time on the side of atheism these days (in large part due to this forum) but when I'm reading some really interesting physics, I start to think, 'man, how could something this phenomenal just be here for no reason at all'.

 

Just my musings. Not trying to argue one position or the other...

 

(Spelling Edit)

Edited by zapatos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand. As an atheist myself, even I am sometimes awe struck at the wonder and beauty of the universe before me. I just take a different stance. I feel that imaginary friends and fairy tales like those don't add anything to either my understanding or experience... In fact, I'd go so far as to say they detract from that awe and wonder around us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, though. After you've been around these discussions for long enough you begin to realize that the error of thought and logical fallacies are not limited just to the fundamentalists. Even those rather intelligent, very rational, and mostly reasonable theists base their belief position on exactly the same unfounded, meritless, and ultimately rotten foundation.

 

No, I don't realize that. Show me where I look like I have found that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Prophets? That seems like a misuse of the term when applied to people who lack belief in the tooth fairy god.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

They can always celebrate their prophets birthday on the 12th of February.

 

Lets see if anyone can figure out who I'm talking about :rolleyes:

 

Seems you're a bit confused:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

Scientist -

an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.

 

Prophet -

A) a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

B) a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets. C) one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers

D) a person who practices divination.

E) one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.

F) the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

G) a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

 

Anyone who would describe Darwin as a "prophet" has very clearly, never read anything he wrote. Darwin never claims to be divinely inspired, or even actually correct in any of his writings.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not making sense… sort of.

You don't know how the world outside our world works.

Hard to explain why, but I can sort of figure it out why.

It starts with the question: Is God rational?

 

Well what is rationality? Simply put, rationality is a consistent behaviour given consistent situations.

 

So, if God is rational, then He will act in a consistent way. This is essential if God is to be good.

 

Take this: God is presented with a situation where there is two choices:

1) Do something Good

2) Do something Evil

 

If God is rational, then He will choose to do good. If He is irrational, then He will randomly choose good sometimes and evil other times.

 

Thus, if God is Good, then He must act rationally. Of course He doesn't have to, only that if He chooses to be Good He must act rationally and thus we can know what God should do if He wishes to be Good (but being omnipotent He is capable of being evil and of choosing not to be).

 

This might be a bit confusing as the logic is fairly complex, but put simply:

 

  • Irrational actions don't have consistency.
  • An all powerful being must have the ability to be evil.
  • A Good being must be rational (so that they consistently choose good).

 

Therefore God, if He is good, must be rational.

 

If God is rational, then we can work out what the rational action would be, and thus the action God would take in that situation.

 

Now, God would not be constrained to only perform these actions, but that if He didn't perform them He would not longer be completely Good (thus Good and Evil for God is a choice, not a necessity). Actually, from this we can conclude that God has free will because if He didn't have the freedom to choose Good or Evil, then He would not be all powerful as He would have a constraint.

 

Now, given all the above, in the following situation what is the rational course of action consistent with being good:

 

You have the power to make the universe anyway you want with any physical laws you want and any restrictions on the inhabitants of that universe that you want.

 

  1. Create a universe with suffering
  2. Create a universe without suffering

 

As it is possible to create a universe without suffering, then all suffering is unnecessary. Is the deliberate creation of suffering a Good or evil act?

 

If it is an evil act, then God can not be good because He will have made a deliberate and evil act.

 

But, according to Christian doctrine, God will not perform an evil act. But if God created the universe with suffering He will have performed an evil act.

 

This means that the Christian religion is incompatible with a universe that has suffering in it, and as our universe has suffering, then this means the Christian religion can not be true.

 

There is no escape from this. The properties of an omnipotent and good god with a universe that has suffering can not be combined.

 

Now, if God is not Good, or God is not rational; then the universe as it is, is compatible, but the Christian religion states that God is good (and thus rational).

 

If God is not omnipotent; then the universe as it is, is compatible, but the Christian religion states that God is omnipotent.

 

In all debates, if something disagrees with reality, then reality wins. The reality is we live in a universe with suffering and the Christian religion requires us to be in a universe without suffering.

 

As reality always wins: The Christian religion must therefore fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.