Elshamah Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yes I can, I have done so, just because you cannot keep from raping and pillaging the world with out the threat of eternal damnation doesn't mean everyone else shares your character flaw... well, lower the level, and make personal attacks, does not strenghten your position. I respect the life of other human beings, I respect their need for life, it's called empathy, I do not have to have a god to tell me if harming someone else is wrong... based on what moral standard can you possibly know, that respect the life of other human beings, and empathy , is good, and harming someone is wrong ??? Hitler thought, kill the Jews was a good thing for germany. Based on what do you believe, your moral standard is above Hitler's ? So... it finally comes out, if I had only studied the bible I would agree with you... I have no disbelief in god, I have no belief in a god or gods, I see no evidence of such a being or beings, in the absence of evidence the default position is there are no gods... What a weak position, based on a negative..... How about rather than that, you present evidence naturalism is true, and nature is all there exists, no intelligent cause involved in our existence ? How much would you like to bet? To be completely honest actually reading and studying the bible is what makes me sure your god does not exist... Before I actually studied it I was quite sure a god or gods existed, most probably your god in fact, but reading it and actually trying to understand it instead of listening to what everyone else claimed it said and meant convinced me that your god is nothing but mythology, much like Zeus, Mars, Jupiter, Thor, Odin, and every other deity tossed onto the trash bin of human belief your god is no better than any of the others and deserves no better than any of the others.... And based on what evidence do you believe, naturalism is true ? any positive arguments and explanations on hand ? You have been presented with an objective moral standard that does not need god. couldn't this "objective moral standard" come from a different god. perhaps a deistic god? Your god does things which we all can agree are wrong even if that moral consensus is subjective. Why do we need an objective moral standard to judge god (or anything else)with? Why do you insist that all morals come from god? because without God, no objective moral standard can exist. Everything becomes relative, individual, and subjective. Why should your moral standard be above Hitler's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 well, lower the level, and make personal attacks, does not strenghten your position. pot kettle black... based on what moral standard can you possibly know, that respect the life of other human beings, and empathy , is good, and harming someone is wrong ??? Hitler thought, kill the Jews was a good thing for germany. Based on what do you believe, your moral standard is above Hitler's ? Please see post #7 in this thread, actually watch it this time... What a weak position, based on a negative..... How about rather than that, you present evidence naturalism is true, and nature is all there exists, no intelligent cause involved in our existence ? And based on what evidence do you believe, naturalism is true ? any positive arguments and explanations on hand ? Evidence for naturalism? The computer you are typing this on works because science based on naturalism works, the medicine you take, the car you drive, the airplane you fly across, country in the food you eat, in fact our entire first world civilization works due to scientific naturalism. Take away scientific naturalism and people begin to die immediately, millions within days, pray for the sick and injured all you want they will die, pray your water supply works or that the sewage system works, pray for electricity to be generated. Within months billions of us would die, no more technology, no more food, no more medicine.... scientific naturalism, it works, it provides us with life it's self, pray all you want, I'll go with science for the win and civilization... because without God, no objective moral standard can exist. Everything becomes relative, individual, and subjective. Why should your moral standard be above Hitler's ? Hitler was religious, in fact he was a creationist, if you don't understand why Hitler was wrong then you either cannot comprehend empathy or you need to be threatened with eternal damnation before you will behave, either way is unacceptable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Something i don't understand. In what way is a moral 'objective' just because it comes from a god(s). I assume it was still made by the 'creator'? Is it simply that if god(s) says it's bad, it's bad? In theory then, if god(s) changes his mind and says, actually homosexualtiy is OK, does that then become the objective moral? Or does the attribute of all-knowing allow god(s) access to knowledge of what is eternally good and bad, but is something that somehow exists independently of god(s)? If the former, then i am glad the bringer of light, Lucifer, revolted against the tyranny of the literal biblical god. If the latter, we're no closer to knowing 'where' objective morals come from, and god(s) is simply a messenger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 You have been presented with an objective moral standard that does not need god. couldn't this "objective moral standard" come from a different god. perhaps a deistic god? Your god does things which we all can agree are wrong even if that moral consensus is subjective. Why do we need an objective moral standard to judge god (or anything else)with? Why do you insist that all morals come from god? I love the "grapplingwithignorance" guy, great video... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Evidence for naturalism? The computer you are typing this on works because science based on naturalism works, the medicine you take, the car you drive, the airplane you fly across, country in the food you eat, in fact our entire first world civilization works due to scientific naturalism. Take away scientific naturalism and people begin to die immediately, millions within days, pray for the sick and injured all you want they will die, pray your water supply works or that the sewage system works, pray for electricity to be generated. Within months billions of us would die, no more technology, no more food, no more medicine.... scientific naturalism, it works, it provides us with life it's self, pray all you want, I'll go with science for the win and civilization... dodging my question......Naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. No intelligent creator required. Please present evidence for this world view. Hitler was religious, in fact he was a creationist, if you don't understand why Hitler was wrong then you either cannot comprehend empathy it doesnt matter what Hitler declared to be. Fact is, he thought to kill jews was good. Based on what moral standard can you possibly say he was wrong ? Based on what can you say, empathy is good ? or you need to be threatened with eternal damnation before you will behave, either way is unacceptable... Lets say, that would be a matter of fact. Why would it be unacceptable ? based on what can you determine, what is acceptable, what is not ? the foundation of atheism is complete nihilism. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 No. The foundation of atheism is the nonacceptance of other peoples myths. It literally means not-theist. That's all. It is not itself a belief system, and it is not equivalent to nihilism. Discussion with you is fruitless. Your mind is made up, your positions are fallacious, and there is nothing others could say to change it. Seriously, why bother? You're not a reasonable discussion partner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 dodging my question......Naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. No intelligent creator required. Please present evidence for this world view. I just did, naturalism works, the supernatural does not... it doesnt matter what Hitler declared to be. Fact is, he thought to kill jews was good. Based on what moral standard can you possibly say he was wrong ? Based on what can you say, empathy is good ? Again you have no understanding of my position and only see my position as defined by you... strawman at best... Lets say, that would be a matter of fact. Why would it be unacceptable ? based on what can you determine, what is acceptable, what is not ? the foundation of atheism is complete nihilism. Again, i suggest you actually think about what you are saying, first of all atheism is simply lack of belief in a god or gods... nothing more... you are asserting that morals can only come from god, i have shown you this is false, I have to admit it doesn't mean morality wasn't handed down by gods only that morality is possible with out gods. But I can go further and show that morals are an intricate part of any and all social species as applies to their particular needs. People who do not socialize well tend not to successfully reproduce over time, our basic moral structure is rooted in our biology. Now you go further and say that morals can only be derived from god, in your case a particular god, but if we examine the behavior of your god and the behaviors he demands from his followers it is easy to show your god is not moral in the human sense at the very least. But there is a greater problem here, you keep asking for evidence that there is no god which is simply silly. To be 100% sure there are no gods would require a being with at least god like powers to make such an assertion. It is how ever easy to show, as has been shown many times here, that there is no evidence for the existence of god. your ideas about god keep getting shoved into smaller and smaller places, now he would seem to hide some place in the big bang which in of it's self may very well not be an entirely accurate description of reality. None the less even if the big bang turns out to be correct and the universe cannot be explained by natural causes we can be aware of that does not mean that a god did it much less that your god did it... your idea that something must come from nothing if the big bang is true is a strawman as well. Only you are asserting that something comes from nothing, a god that comes from nothing and makes everything from nothing... Again I see a basic misunderstanding here, just because science cannot say what came before the big bang and in most ways this is a nonsensical question, it does not imply something from nothing, it means we simply do not know... We do not know does not mean god did it after all, there is still no evidence what so ever for a god or your god, yes it would be extremely easy to god to show his existence, he has in the past... supposedly... stop the sun in the sky, swap the orbits of planets, if god is all powerful then he can do these things, his so called holy book says he has done them in the past, has he gotten shy in his old age? Come off it dude, believe if you want but to assert your beliefs as the truth is simply dishonest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Even if, lets say, the argument would stand, how exactly would that prove God does not exist ? Is God a moral monster ? Why did you bother with that stupid strawman? I didn't say it proved He didn't exist. I said it proved that He's immoral. More importantly, the argument does stand (at least until someone actually refutes it). So your God is a monster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 If you start from the premise that people tend to cede moral decision making to group consensus, it follows that the concept of god comes from morality - i.e. god is a personification of group moral authority (ignoring some other bells and whistles attached to the idea of god). I don't know whether this is another discussion, but, religion seems to occupy what in some sense is an office of moral authority, in the same sort of sense that a president or PM occupies an office of state administration. The office itself is far more important than the entity that fills it. What worries me is that this office of moral authority could be subsumed into the office of sovereignty, and if you're prepared to accept the intial premise of this post, that people tend to cede moral decision making to group consensus, this seems likely, if the office of moral authority is not either filled or restructured somehow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 No. The foundation of atheism is the nonacceptance of other peoples myths. It literally means not-theist. That's all. It is not itself a belief system, and it is not equivalent to nihilism. It depends if you talk about weak, or strong atheism. Since atheists do defend a position, even if they declare themself weak atheists, it becomes clear very fast, that they are strong atheists. And, no. Its indeed a belief system. http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/ 1. There is no God. 2. There is no afterlife. 3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality. 4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent. 5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’. 6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles. Discussion with you is fruitless. Your mind is made up How about you? are you open to consider a different view point as yours ? , your positions are fallacious Why so ? You're not a reasonable discussion partner. and last not least, a personal attack. why do i not wonder about this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It depends if you talk about weak, or strong atheism. Since atheists do defend a position, even if they declare themself weak atheists, it becomes clear very fast, that they are strong atheists. And, no. Its indeed a belief system. http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/ 1. There is no God. 2. There is no afterlife. 3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality. 4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent. 5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’. 6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles. How about you? are you open to consider a different view point as yours ? Why so ? and last not least, a personal attack. why do i not wonder about this ? So you use a blatantly biased site (christian fundamentalist) to support your assertions about atheism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Again, i suggest you actually think about what you are saying, first of all atheism is simply lack of belief in a god or gods... nothing more... And what is strong atheism ??!! you are asserting that morals can only come from god, i have shown you this is false no, you have not. beside this, i have said that objective moral standards can only come from God. morality is possible with out gods. you have not answered my question : which moral standard ? and it is based on what exactly ? But I can go further and show that morals are an intricate part of any and all social species as applies to their particular needs. ok, please show me how moralities apply to the animal world, since animals have no decision power, but behave based on their instincts. People who do not socialize well tend not to successfully reproduce over time that would mean, that all animals, that do not socialize, would have to be extinct by now. , our basic moral structure is rooted in our biology. absolute assertions demand absolute proofs. Prove your assertion, please. Now you go further and say that morals can only be derived from god, in your case a particular god, but if we examine the behavior of your god and the behaviors he demands from his followers it is easy to show your god is not moral in the human sense at the very least. that is your subjective opinion , probably based on the fact that you have not studied the bible. But there is a greater problem here, you keep asking for evidence that there is no god which is simply silly. no, you should care and pay more atention to the formulation of my question. I am asking for evidence the universe is all there is. thats different. To be 100% sure there are no gods would require a being with at least god like powers to make such an assertion. It is how ever easy to show, as has been shown many times here, that there is no evidence for the existence of god. That is a silly assertion, made like a mantra by non thinking atheists. Our universe is evidence, either for atheism, or theism. It just depends on how we do interprete the scientific knowledge we do have. For me, there is plenty of evidence for theism, all creation tells us how powerful and wonderful the God is, that created all we see and observe. Evidence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god your ideas about god keep getting shoved into smaller and smaller places thats just wishful thinking. you might ignore this, but there is a revolution going on in the scientific community towards intelligent design. There is less and less evidence for the evolution theory. None the less even if the big bang turns out to be correct nontheless, many questions simply remain unanswered, or the answers do not satisfy. How did planets form ? why are we not able to detect dark matter ? the big bang theory is full of unanswered questions, despite some issues, like the beginning of the universe, are well answered. and the universe cannot be explained by natural causes we can be aware of that does not mean that a god did it much less that your god did it... well, either the universe was created , or it was not. Either one, or the other. There is no further alternative. If the universe had a beginning, what the big bang theory strongly suggests, then the universe had a cause. Which is evidence for a creator. your idea that something must come from nothing if the big bang is true is a strawman as well. Only you are asserting that something comes from nothing, no , i actually said, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. a god that comes from nothing and makes everything from nothing... i did not say, that God came from nothing, or that he was created. but that God is eternal, without beginning, without a end. We do not know does not mean god did it after all, You can always replace " The evidence points clearly to a creator " with " we do not know yet ". that way, God can always be ignored, and be left outside the door . Unfortunately, you just betray yourself. there is still no evidence what so ever for a god or your god, yes it would be extremely easy to god to show his existence, he has in the past... supposedly... stop the sun in the sky, swap the orbits of planets, if god is all powerful Neither do i beleive, god is all powerful, neither that he wants to prove his existence to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 And what is strong atheism ??!! What is weak theism? no, you have not. beside this, i have said that objective moral standards can only come from God. And you have been shown this not to be true... you have not answered my question : which moral standard ? and it is based on what exactly ? Again I have shown all of this, I refuse to keep beating a dead horse... ok, please show me how moralities apply to the animal world, since animals have no decision power, but behave based on their instincts. Animals have no decision power? You cannot be seriously asserting that? All social animals have behaviors that promote the species and the individual to a greater or lesser degree, these would be the equivalent of morals, wolves, lions, chimps all have behaviors that can be called moral in their context. It doesn't match what we call morals exactly but they do take care of each other, they do not eat each other or kill each other for no reason. Still to suggest animals have no decision power is outrageous, have you never had a dog? that would mean, that all animals, that do not socialize, would have to be extinct by now. Not at all, in some ecological niches non social animals do quite well, this idea cannot be used to say that all animals have to be social to survive... absolute assertions demand absolute proofs. Prove your assertion, please. I think i just did... social behavior requires behaviors that allow members of the group to live together, those that fall outside the behaviors that promote the group do not do as well and tend not to reproduce over time... that is your subjective opinion , probably based on the fact that you have not studied the bible. So again with the assertion that I have just not studied the bible even though I have told you i have... no, you should care and pay more atention to the formulation of my question. I am asking for evidence the universe is all there is. thats different. And I am asking for evidence there is more than the universe... That is a silly assertion, made like a mantra by non thinking atheists. Our universe is evidence, either for atheism, or theism. It just depends on how we do interprete the scientific knowledge we do have. For me, there is plenty of evidence for theism, all creation tells us how powerful and wonderful the God is, that created all we see and observe. No, creation as you call it, is evidence of nothing but the existence of the universe, nothing else can be implied from that... Evidence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god This is evidence of nothing but your ideas about god... thats just wishful thinking. you might ignore this, but there is a revolution going on in the scientific community towards intelligent design. There is less and less evidence for the evolution theory. No there is not, this is a blatant lie.... nontheless, many questions simply remain unanswered, or the answers do not satisfy. How did planets form ? why are we not able to detect dark matter ? the big bang theory is full of unanswered questions, despite some issues, like the beginning of the universe, are well answered. Your incredulity is not an argument, just because you can't understand something... well, either the universe was created , or it was not. Either one, or the other. There is no further alternative. If the universe had a beginning, what the big bang theory strongly suggests, then the universe had a cause. Which is evidence for a creator False dichotomy, your choices are not the only ones and do not preclude a natural cause we are as yet unaware of... no , i actually said, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. You claim god derives from nothing if not where did he come from, saying he is eternal is no better than saying the universe is eternal... why add a layer of complexity that adds more questions? i did not say, that God came from nothing, or that he was created. but that God is eternal, without beginning, without a end. How do you know that? Why can't the universe just be eternal? You can always replace " The evidence points clearly to a creator " with " we do not know yet ". that way, God can always be ignored, and be left outside the door . Unfortunately, you just betray yourself. You could do that but it stops all inquiry into the problem, if we assume god did it then why bother to investigate? If we had said that about disease we would still be trying to heal with prayer and people would still be dying of easily cured aliments... Neither do i beleive, god is all powerful, neither that he wants to prove his existence to us. So god is not all powerful? the being you claim made the universe by simply speaking it into existence is not all powerful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Moonman - Weak atheism = "There probably is not god. Of course I can't be sure, but I also can't be sure there is no tooth fairy." You know, the VAST majority of nonbelievers. Strong atheism = "There is no god. I actively believe in the nonexistence of god, not this "there probably isn't" stuff." Elshamah - If atheism is a belief system then bald is a hair color. In much the same way that my nonbelief in santa claus is not a belief system, my nonbelief in your personally preferred flavor of god is also not a belief system. It is nothing more than the nonacceptance of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Moonman - Weak atheism = "There probably is not god. Of course I can't be sure, but I also can't be sure there is no tooth fairy." You know, the VAST majority of nonbelievers. Strong atheism = "There is no god. I actively believe in the nonexistence of god, not this "there probably isn't" stuff." Elshamah - If atheism is a belief system then bald is a hair color. In much the same way that my nonbelief in santa claus is not a belief system, my nonbelief in your personally preferred flavor of god is also not a belief system. It is nothing more than the nonacceptance of yours. Oh I know what weak atheism is, I was just doing him the favor of answering his question with a question like he did... Edited August 9, 2012 by Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 You claim god derives from nothing if not where did he come from, saying he is eternal is no better than saying the universe is eternal... why add a layer of complexity that adds more questions? Of course it is better. Scientific evidence points to a finite universe, which had a beginning. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the-kalam-cosmological-argument Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Of course it is better. Scientific evidence points to a finite universe, which had a beginning. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the-kalam-cosmological-argument Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists. No... one is not warranted to to conclude anything of the sort, but lets go with this, if someone comes up with a better theory than the big bang, lets say just for the sake of shits and giggles that this theory is better supported than the big bang and it asserts that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, just change from one state to another will you abandon your faith in a creator god? Are you honest enough to admit it when your assertions about god are disproved? Will you become an atheist if this happens? or will you continue to look for even smaller places to put your foot? Oh I mean god... BTW your web site and your shameless promotion of your own website as evidence which gives no answers that have not been refuted many many times is dishonest, doesn't your creator have something to say about that? something about a 9th commandment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 No... one is not warranted to to conclude anything of the sort, but lets go with this, if someone comes up with a better theory than the big bang, lets say just for the sake of shits and giggles that this theory is better supported than the big bang and it asserts that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, just change from one state to another will you abandon your faith in a creator god? Are you honest enough to admit it when your assertions about god are disproved? Will you become an atheist if this happens? or will you continue to look for even smaller places to put your foot? Oh I mean god... BTW your web site and your shameless promotion of your own website as evidence which gives no answers that have not been refuted many many times is dishonest, doesn't your creator have something to say about that? something about a 9th commandment? you just ignore my point, and come up with a bunch of speculative questions. You ignored also all the evidence i provided to you for Gods existence, and dismissed it without hesitation, not giving a hint of serious consideration. That tells whats up with you. You do reject God based on emotional ground, and think you have good reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, you just delude yourself....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 you just ignore my point, and come up with a bunch of speculative questions. You ignored also all the evidence i provided to you for Gods existence, and dismissed it without hesitation, not giving a hint of serious consideration. That tells whats up with you. You do reject God based on emotional ground, and think you have good reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, you just delude yourself....... BS, you give us walls of text with nothing but stuff that has been refuted so many times if I had a quarter for every time they've been debunked I'd be a moderately wealthy man but you seem to think that we have to refute each one every time you post them. It's like you think you will win this debate by overwhelming us with details. I've got some news for you, there is no win or loose here, only evidence and so far you actually have none, nada , zip... Only your faith and disbelief, your inability to understand doesn't negate reality. If you want to play fair I will too, but stop with the walls of text listing everything you think refutes reality and expect us to refute them all at once. Start a thread if you can't find one to suit you and give us your evidence, one thing at a time and allow us to either refute that one thing or admit to not knowing. One thing at a time but if you expect me to continue to go back over the same material over and over the long lists have to stop and once something has been refuted it stays refuted until you come up with new evidence for it. Simply repeating it over and over is nonsensical and smacks of insanity... Stop using your lame website as evidence it is nothing but evidence of your own ignorance in this matter... You are using a tactic of dishonesty creationist types are well known for, I suggest yet again you check out the 9th commandment, the one about being honest, you might want to check out the golden rule as well, not that it has anything to do with a god... BTW, one more time, I see no evidence of god, therefor the default position is there are no gods, this is not an emotional issue, it has nothing to do with hating god or rejecting god it has to do with a complete lack of actual empirical evidence, none what so ever, if you want to believe then believe but be honest about it, it's your belief, it's not a verifiable description of reality, it's just not... I do not hate god or the idea of a god, it would be great if there really was such a being who really really cared about me personally and if I die all my relatives who have already passed waiting for me, maybe like the Mormons I'll get my own planet but so far i see no reason what so ever to expect anything when i die but nothing... For me time is neatly separated into three sections before i existed, while i exist, and after I exist, if you want to convince me show me something that validates your claims other than it's what i want things to be... by the way you've been pwned in this thread so many times it's really kinda sad... morality does not depend on religion, the idea that it does when compared to religion and what religion represents and what the people who assert it do to support their god is immoral. the idea that you or i cannot be moral with out an immoral monster to tell us what to do is disgusting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 It depends if you talk about weak, or strong atheism. Since atheists do defend a position, even if they declare themself weak atheists, it becomes clear very fast, that they are strong atheists. And, no. Its indeed a belief system. http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/ 1. There is no God. 2. There is no afterlife. 3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality. 4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent. 5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’. 6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles. Atheism is the non-belief in a deity. You don't have to "believe that there is no god" just not believe that there is. I do not BELIEVE that there is a bear outside eating my garbage. I do not believe that there are no bears outside eating my garbage. I simply lack an opinion strong enough to be described a belief on the issue. thats just wishful thinking. you might ignore this, but there is a revolution going on in the scientific community towards intelligent design. There is less and less evidence for the evolution theory. wait WHAT! IS SOMEONE STEELING THE HUNDREDS OF FOSSILS OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES!!!!!!! nontheless, many questions simply remain unanswered, or the answers do not satisfy. How did planets form ? why are we not able to detect dark matter ? the big bang theory is full of unanswered questions, despite some issues, like the beginning of the universe, are well answered. the fact that you have gotten this of topic is a little telling...Planets forming is well explained in modern science. Dark matter can't be seen because it is dark. (not emitting em). Why can't you find your keys in a dark room? The big bang theory is full of holes partly because it is not a widely understood theory. Many of them would be filled in if it were understood. Well, either the universe was created , or it was not. Either one, or the other. There is no further alternative. If the universe had a beginning, what the big bang theory strongly suggests, then the universe had a cause. Which is evidence for a creator. Again cause and effect does not make sense without the existence of time. no , i actually said, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. then what did god use to make the universe?He made it out of nothing? That makes no more sense (NEITHER DOES A BEING SPEAKING ANYTHING INTO EXISTINCE.) i did not say, that God came from nothing, or that he was created. but that God is eternal, without beginning, without a end. all concepts rooted in time and do not make sense "prior" to the big bang. You can always replace " The evidence points clearly to a creator " with " we do not know yet ". that way, God can always be ignored, and be left outside the door . Unfortunately, you just betray yourself. You can take any question we don't yet know the answer to and say it proves god.Unanswered questions do not indicate god. based on what moral standard can you possibly know, that respect the life of other human beings, and empathy , is good, and harming someone is wrong ??? Hitler thought, kill the Jews was a good thing for germany. Based on what do you believe, your moral standard is above Hitler's ? Prove that your moral standard is correct. Prove that your morals are moral.we have MANY standards ONE OF WHICH IS IN POST #7 THE FIRST VIDEO (I all caps for emphasis, not to denote that I am shouting) What a weak position, based on a negative..... How about rather than that, you present evidence naturalism is true, and nature is all there exists, no intelligent cause involved in our existence ? have you ever wondered why in the court of law a person is guilty until proven Innocent?It is not because we wanted the process to be biased towards the accused. One cannot prove the validity of a negative statement ie I did not throw an egg at that dragon statue. if there is a cup on a table and I tell you "there is a ball under that cup" you cannot prove that there is not. You can pick up the cup and say "where is the ball". I can respond with "it is invisible (or microscopic etc)" You can feel around the cup to see if you can feel the ball but I can claim that it is incorporeal. No one can prove that a creator does not exist. A positive statement however can be proven true (if the ball had been visible) therefore the burden of proof is placed on the one making the positive affirmation. ie. you have to provide evidence for your gods existence. because without God, no objective moral standard can exist. yes we know that you think so. can you tell us why? especially in light of the first video in post 7? no way you can ignore it now. I used obnoxiously large text. Everything becomes relative, individual, and subjective. Why should your moral standard be above Hitler's ? Same question, right back at you. You are using a tactic of dishonesty creationist types are well known for, I suggest yet again you check out the 9th commandment, the one about being honest, you might want to check out the golden rule as well, not that it has anything to do with a god... Matthew 7:12 - "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." ps. sorry if their any grammar errors. with a post so big they are hard to spot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Atheism is the non-belief in a deity. You don't have to "believe that there is no god" just not believe that there is. I do not BELIEVE that there is a bear outside eating my garbage. I do not believe that there are no bears outside eating my garbage. I simply lack an opinion strong enough to be described a belief on the issue. and strong atheism is ............. ??!! wait WHAT! IS SOMEONE STEELING THE HUNDREDS OF FOSSILS OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES!!!!!!! http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html#fsslrcrdgpsnrsstlldstrbnglckfmssnglnksrtrnstnlfrmsbtwnthmjrgrpsfrgnsms "In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115). the fact that you have gotten this of topic is a little telling...Planets forming is well explained in modern science. hahahaa, no kidding.... http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t415-the-naturalistic-formation-of-planets-exceedingly-difficult But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The most difficult step is the first, gravitational contraction of dust to form small particles. Dust grains must first accrete to form small particles, which must continue to grow until they are at least 10 m in diameter. This size is the point at which gravity is expected to come into its own, accreting and condensing material at a faster and faster rate. Then supposedly, planetesimals would form that are many kilometres across. The planetesimals are finally envisaged to collide to form planets. There are difficult problems with these later steps, but I will focus on the first step: how does the dust collide, stick together and grow before gravity can assert itself? That is the big question. The tiny dust particles must hit each other head on and stick.1 The process (which is speculative anyhow) is too slow, especially in cold regions of space, according to astronomers. A number of hypotheses are in vogue, but all seem to have fatal flaws. Dark matter can't be seen because it is dark. (not emitting em). oh sure....... http://www.charliewagner.net/big.htm Most of the evidence collected so far gives no indication that this huge amount of invisible matter exists. As far as the universe is concerned, what you see is what there is. Again cause and effect does not make sense without the existence of time. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect. then what did god use to make the universe? his powerful word. He made it out of nothing? That makes no more sense (NEITHER DOES A BEING SPEAKING ANYTHING INTO EXISTINCE.) We cannot understand, how a powerful God might speak something into existence, but it still makes a LOT more sense, than to substitute a powerful creator with simply absolutely nothing. all concepts rooted in time and do not make sense "prior" to the big bang. i do not agree. See above answer. You can take any question we don't yet know the answer to and say it proves god. I don't use the God of the Gaps argument. The beginning of the universe, its fine tuning, complex specified information stored in dna, conscience, morals , all of it points directly towards a intelligent , morally perfect creator. Unanswered questions do not indicate god. If the questions cannot be answered with naturalism, indeed it does. That is a logical step of thinking. Prove that your moral standard is correct. Prove that your morals are moral. Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ? we have MANY standards ONE OF WHICH IS IN POST #7 THE FIRST VIDEO (I all caps for emphasis, not to denote that I am shouting) thats is EXACTLY the point. Which of all these standards is the binding one ? Hitlers standard is ok ? if not, why not ? who tells, his standard was wrong ? have you ever wondered why in the court of law a person is guilty until proven Innocent? what does that matter to the discussion ? No one can prove that a creator does not exist. thats why i have not made that question. But in the same way, as you ask for evidence of Gods existence, ( which i have actually provided plenty of it, despite the insistante assertion there is no evidence for gods existence ) strong atheists should also be capable to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true. So far, i have not seen ONE good and compelling argument. A positive statement however can be proven true (if the ball had been visible) therefore the burden of proof is placed on the one making the positive affirmation.ie. you have to provide evidence for your gods existence. provided plenty of it : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god where is yours for philosophical naturalism ? yes we know that you think so.can you tell us why? Because without God, morals would be just a subject of individual and cultural opinion. If i think that torture, rape, kill, and eat your newborn daughter is the most sublime, delightful, good behavior, based on what moral standard can you possibly say, i did something bad ? Why is your OPINION worth more than mine ? Same question, right back at you. well, if you cannot answer my question, my argument is confirmed. Without God, no objective moral standard exists. p.s. people who loose a debate, and start adhoms, calling me dishonest, should search for other people to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 and strong atheism is ............. ??!! Why do you keep asking this? iNow answered it for you several posts ago, why do you keep asking it? http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html#fsslrcrdgpsnrsstlldstrbnglckfmssnglnksrtrnstnlfrmsbtwnthmjrgrpsfrgnsms "In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115). This is misleading and dishonest not to mention almost 60 years out of date... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils hahahaa, no kidding.... http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t415-the-naturalistic-formation-of-planets-exceedingly-difficult But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The most difficult step is the first, gravitational contraction of dust to form small particles. Dust grains must first accrete to form small particles, which must continue to grow until they are at least 10 m in diameter. This size is the point at which gravity is expected to come into its own, accreting and condensing material at a faster and faster rate. Then supposedly, planetesimals would form that are many kilometres across. The planetesimals are finally envisaged to collide to form planets. There are difficult problems with these later steps, but I will focus on the first step: how does the dust collide, stick together and grow before gravity can assert itself? That is the big question. The tiny dust particles must hit each other head on and stick.1 The process (which is speculative anyhow) is too slow, especially in cold regions of space, according to astronomers. A number of hypotheses are in vogue, but all seem to have fatal flaws. More misleading tripe from your own website? How about some real science? http://www.space.com/450-planets-form-mess.html http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form oh sure....... http://www.charliewagner.net/big.htm Most of the evidence collected so far gives no indication that this huge amount of invisible matter exists. As far as the universe is concerned, what you see is what there is. Charlie Wagner? really? Talk about blatant dishonesty, he is not a scientist, just a science denier, his babbling is no better than any other science denier, all he does is deny, he doesn't provide any evidence for anything. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect. You are quoting William Lane Craig? You have just lost all possible credibility, he is nothing but a christian apologist, a much debunked Christian apologist, his musings on this subject are horse feathers... his powerful word. Show evidence of that please We cannot understand, how a powerful God might speak something into existence, but it still makes a LOT more sense, than to substitute a powerful creator with simply absolutely nothing. Again, no one is saying that, all that is being said is that at this time we do not know where everything came from. i do not agree. See above answer. Good idea I don't use the God of the Gaps argument. The beginning of the universe, its fine tuning, complex specified information stored in dna, conscience, morals , all of it points directly towards a intelligent , morally perfect creator. And you have been shown several times why this is not true, fine tuning is bunk, if things were different they would be different, nothing else can be said about the fine tuning no information in DNA, as for morally perfect... I pointed out how morally bankrupt your myth of god is way back in this thread. If the questions cannot be answered with naturalism, indeed it does. That is a logical step of thinking. No it is not, you would still be left with no evidence what so ever other than your faith... but more importantly naturalism comes up with new answers all the time, once lightning was thought to be god's wrath now we can divert it away from us, is god that weak? The logical step is to continue to seek answers not stop and say god did it, if we had done that 200 years ago common diseases would still be killing people diseases that are easily cured now, god did it is not an answer to anything... Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ? lets see, 4 of them have nothing to do with morals, one is just about impossible for humans, one is iffy but I'll give it to you since defying it could cause harm to another and the other 4 are self evident. Now i ask you, god demand humans break these rules quite a bit in the bible, he breaks them as well, how are they relevant to the commands to kill I showed you earlier in this thread? thats is EXACTLY the point. Which of all these standards is the binding one ? Hitlers standard is ok ? if not, why not ? who tells, his standard was wrong ? Again go to post #7 in this thread, watch it, try to understand why Hitler was wrong via these ideas. If you cannot then maybe you really do need the threat of eternal damnation to keep you in line... which standard in the bible is the binding one? what does that matter to the discussion ? You don't understand what evidence is and why it is important do you? thats why i have not made that question. But in the same way, as you ask for evidence of Gods existence, ( which i have actually provided plenty of it, despite the insistante assertion there is no evidence for gods existence ) strong atheists should also be capable to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true. So far, i have not seen ONE good and compelling argument. Ok, on this you come pretty close to having a point, if i were to assert i knew there was no god i should have to support that assertion with evidence but naturalism proves it's self, it works, but know one here is saying that naturalism proves there is no god, this is your own strawman... provided plenty of it : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god yet another link to your web site where you give misleading and distorted views as evidence? where is yours for philosophical naturalism ? Naturalism works, take away the fruits of naturalism and most of the people on the earth would die with in weeks months for sure, naturalism works, no way around it, with out scientific naturalism we could not be having this conversation, most of us would not even be alive... Because without God, morals would be just a subject of individual and cultural opinion. If i think that torture, rape, kill, and eat your newborn daughter is the most sublime, delightful, good behavior, based on what moral standard can you possibly say, i did something bad ? Why is your OPINION worth more than mine ? You really didn't watch the video in post #7 did you? well, if you cannot answer my question, my argument is confirmed. Without God, no objective moral standard exists. p.s. people who loose a debate, and start adhoms, calling me dishonest, should search for other people to debate. More dishonesty Elshamah, you have been shown the answers to your questions over and over, you present no new evidence to back up your assertions just the same high pitched whine about how unfair it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) and strong atheism is ............. ??!! when an atheist can bench 300 Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ? 1.) Thou shalt have no other gods before me 2.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image 3.) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain 4.) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy 5.) Honour thy father and thy mother 6.) Thou shalt not kill 7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery 8.) Thou shalt not steal 9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10.) Thou shalt not covet I agree with 3 out of 10. the rest I disagree with (especially if the punishment for breaking them involves killing or torture) thats is EXACTLY the point. Which of all these standards is the binding one ? Hitlers standard is ok ? if not, why not ? who tells, his standard was wrong ? your morality is just as harmed by this argument as any secular morality would be. thats why i have not made that question. But in the same way, as you ask for evidence of Gods existence, ( which i have actually provided plenty of it, despite the insistante assertion there is no evidence for gods existence ) strong atheists should also be capable to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true. So far, i have not seen ONE good and compelling argument. if we are defining naturalism as the belief that nature is all their is, than my argument is the definition of nature is pretty much everything there is. Because without God, morals would be just a subject of individual and cultural opinion. If i think that torture, rape, kill, and eat your newborn daughter is the most sublime, delightful, good behavior, based on what moral standard can you possibly say, i did something bad ? Why is your OPINION worth more than mine ? what If I had infinite knowledge would that make my opinion better than yours? well, if you cannot answer my question, my argument is confirmed. Without God, no objective moral standard exists. and if you cannot answer mine than with god no objective moral standard cane exist. p.s. people who loose a debate, and start adhoms, calling me dishonest, should search for other people to debate. people who use something they wrote elsewhere to attempt cite what they are saying here are either dishonest or do not understand what a citation is for.dogs can talk see this website it agrees, never mind that I wrote it. saying something in 2 places doesn't make it true. Edited August 11, 2012 by dragonstar57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ? The first 5 of them have nothing to do with morality or ethics. On thou shalt not kill, God cannot take the moral high ground since he commands not only killing but genocide, and commits wholesale specicide when he floods the earth (I mean, if we're accepting the myth as true, right?). And if he is that morally bankrupt that he cannot even follow his own guidelines, why should I consider that anything he says on the subject is worth paying attention to. Without God, no objective moral standard exists. Why should I accept anything as an objective moral standard from a being who cannot even abide by his own supposed standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elshamah Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The first 5 of them have nothing to do with morality or ethics. On thou shalt not kill, God cannot take the moral high ground since he commands not only killing but genocide, and commits wholesale specicide when he floods the earth (I mean, if we're accepting the myth as true, right?). And if he is that morally bankrupt that he cannot even follow his own guidelines, why should I consider that anything he says on the subject is worth paying attention to. Why should I accept anything as an objective moral standard from a being who cannot even abide by his own supposed standard? http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now