patrick.net

FP says

And by objective I presume you mean measurable?

Yup

indigenous says

This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Who or what created God?

HEY YOU says

Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

More profound breakthroughs in the making.

marcus says

FP says

Interesting, I have never come across such peopl

Oh. Well then let me introduce you to Dan, the OP.

Really, Dan stops strangers on the street, knock on people's houses, to tell them that there's no god?

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

Got me.

What if he already existed, the idea that he would/is be exterior to the universe(s) you cannot speak of him in physical universe terms, as in words. Word too come after actions not before, therefore God by definition cannot be described by words.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

Got me.

What if he already existed, the idea that he would/is be exterior to the universe(s) you cannot speak of him in physical universe terms, as in words. Word too come after actions not before, therefore God by definition cannot be defined by words.

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

FP says

atheist/agnostic - a stupid distinction imh

I frame it differently.

To me, there are people that have to have all the answers. This type of person would not let such a question as whether or not there is such a thing as god (leaving the definition relatively open ended) simply stay a question. THEY MUST HAVE THE ANSWERS.

These people are also usually black and white thinkers. Dan fits this. So do most other people who think agnostic is a cop out or doesn't make sense. THey need to know. They need to decide what it is they know. I'm not saying they aren't willing to not know something if it isn't known. But leaving such a question open for exploration or otherwise just leaving the question open when they have the possibility of closing it would not be comfortable for such people.

You are probably in this category too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Strategist says

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

Nope

My theory is that we already existed.

indigenous says

FP says

And by objective I presume you mean measurable?

Yup

So your question is:
"What percentage of the atheists believe there is an element to human nature that is not measurable?"

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

indigenous says

Strategist says

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

Nope

My theory is that we already existed.

That does not explain where we or everything comes from.

FP says

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

I think he's alluding to Einsteins point, what Einstein referred to as not being able to hear the music of the spheres.

FP says

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

I don't think so, clearly someone like Dan is an objectivist ( not that he believes in Ayn Rand), but others I wonder if they think there is some spiritual element beyond the human condition?

I think this is a pathology that is coincident with the advent of psychology in the late 1800s

Strategist says

That does not explain where we or everything comes from.

That implies that there is time, time is a reflection of the physical universe, time would not exist exterior to the universe

marcus says

To me, there are people that have to have all the answers. This type of person would not let such a question as whether or not there is such a thing as god (leaving the definition relatively open ended) simply stay a question.

This is a trivial discussion. If you leave the definition of god open ended, then the question is meaningless and of course everybody is agnostic. If you give a definition, then you have atheists.

FP says

If you give a definition, then you have atheists.

In that case, that is by your definition, a fairly high percentage of Catholic priests, the Pope and other clergy (not fundamentalists) and Rabbis would be atheists.

Is it possible you don't really know what (intelligent adult) religious belief looks like ?

indigenous says

I don't think so

So you think we should be concerned by something that is not measurable, i.e. has no effect on us whatsoever. How can you have any knowledge about things that are not measurable?

FP says

So you think we should be concerned by something that is not measurable, i.e. has no effect on us whatsoever. How can you have any knowledge about things that are not measurable?

"First Way - The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:
Nothing can move itself.
If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
Movement cannot go on for infinity.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
Aquinas is starting from an a posteriori position. For Aquinas motion includes any kind of change e.g. growth. Aquinas argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest. Something which is moving is therefore unnatural and must have been put into that state by some external supernatural power."

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm

BTW I would contend that is it the driving force, the "prime mover" of everyone. Not to say God either. Itself is not measurable, but it's effects are certainly measurable.

marcus says

In that case, that is by your definition, a fairly high percentage of Catholic priests, the Pope and other clergy (not fundamentalists) and Rabbis would be atheists.

No, this is not the logical conclusion from my statement. There can be non-believe in (rule out) something only when this something is defined - this is my statement. Now, why there are as many religious people as there are, we have been over this already.

marcus says

Is it possible you don't really know what (intelligent adult) religious belief looks like ?

I already told you in an earlier comment what it looks like.

Finally, don't forget that there is no symmetry between atheism and theism. One is based on logic, evidence and rational thinking, while the other is not.

indigenous says

BTW I would contend that is it the driving force, the "prime mover" of everyone. Not to say God either. Itself is not measurable, but it's effects are certainly measurable.

A force is measurable. So is something that has effects. It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about.

FP says

A force is measurable. So is something that has effects. It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about.

It seems to me that you don't understand the 1st way.

indigenous says

"First Way - The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle

Science has progressed a lot since St. Thomas Aquinas. Hope you have followed.

FP says

Science has progressed a lot since St. Thomas Aquinas. Hope you have followed.

Yup, but is irrelevant to something that is exterior to the universe.

indigenous says

Yup, but is irrelevant to something that is exterior to the universe.

Ah, now we have made a full circle and you begin to contradict yourself.

FP says

Ah, now we have made a full circle and you begin to contradict yourself.

How so?

marcus says

FP says

If you give a definition, then you have atheists.

FP says

marcus says

In that case, that is by your definition, a fairly high percentage of Catholic priests, the Pope and other clergy (not fundamentalists) and Rabbis would be atheists.

No, this is not the logical conclusion from my statement.

My point is that I doubt you realize that many priests rabbis and clergy are intelligent people who, relative to their own personal beliefs, do not see god in a well defined way (but it is defined), and certainly not in a sky daddy anthropomorphic way. . And yet this does not force them to be atheists. They aren't even agnostic. They have a view that you would put in the "I believe in something" category. And yet they have a spiritual life built around this abstract fuzzy definition.

FP says

I already told you in an earlier comment what it looks like.

No you didn't. You either don't understand my point or you are avoiding it. But that's okay.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

Yet your own words are the most childish on this thread and most others. Only a child relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and refuses to address the actual subject matter.

If you see only ad hominem, that's you're problem.

Literacy is not a problem. Your posts are clear, childish, but clear.

marcus says

You understand exactly what I'm saying. You understand exactly what I think is stupid about these arguments. And yet you call yourself intellectually honest.

You cartoonify anyone who makes a valid, reasonable argument against your pathetic superstitions. The only one being dishonest here is you and it's transparent.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

Define "radical atheist"

Atheist: a person who does not believe in god.

Radical atheist: someone who wants to proselytize against believing

So then anyone who ever proselytized their faith is radical? So every priest, cleric, bishop, rabbi, and religious teacher is a radical theist.

Think about it, child. If no one ever marketed a faith, then that faith would have no followers. Therefore, anyone subscribing to a faith has, by your own criteria, been persuaded by a radical. And any parent who indoctrinates his or her child into his or her faith, by say taking them to church or saying grace before meals, is a radical. Unless you admit to this, you are a lowly hypocrite.

Oh, and following your criteria for radical, Martin Luther King, Jr. and everyone who ever demonstrated for civil rights is a radical. Any person who petitioned government to recognize same-sex marriages is a radical. Any person who ever taught the scientific method and showed how useful and good it is, is a radical scientist. By your criteria, anyone who cares about anything is a radical. That's retarded.

marcus says

or someone who obsessively wants to take it further than just not believing.

So anyone who discusses the issue you wish were taboo is obsessive. That's even more retarded. People frequently discuss subject matters. That does not make them obsessed about it. What's obsessive is going to a building every seven days to give praise to an imaginary figure. That's fucking obsessive.

marcus says

The radical atheist was well described by Einstein.

Oh, appeal to authority. Is that suppose to convince me? You do realize that Einstein married his cousin. Did you follow in his footstep? If not, once again hypocrisy.

Whether or not Einstein believed in a god is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that no god exists and that religion is dangerous. Einstein was an expert in physics, but even in that field, every thing Einstein said was subject to the scientific method. Even if we considered him to be an expert on theology -- an oxymoron like an expert on the physics of Avenger Thor's hammer -- his statements would not be accepted simply because of who he was.

marcus says

They are on a quest to convince others that all religion is evil.

And there is nothing wrong with that quest just like there is nothing wrong with the quests to
- convince everyone that all racism is evil
- convince everyone that same sex marriage is a human right
- convince everyone that all persons should be equal under law regardless of all arbitrary preconditions such as race, sex, sexual orientation, and ethnicity
- convince everyone that the world is round, evolution is real, man-made climate change is real and dangerous
- teach people rational thought, the scientific method, objectivity, mathematics, and science

Only scum like you have a problem with these things. And that's why, if you are truly a teacher, you are truly a horrible one.

Strategist says

I hate Allah. That piece of non existent crap has done tremendous harm to mankind.

No. Allah has done no more harm to mankind than the Joker. Assholes who follow that false prophet did all the harm.

Just because this asshole shot up a theater playing a batman movie, doesn't make fictional DC characters the ones at fault.

A fictional character cannot be blames for the actions of non-fictional persons. Blame the right assholes.

What you should have said is that the world would be better off without any religions, especially the more oppressive ones.

indigenous says

What percentage of the atheists believe there is a spiritual nature to humans?

I can only answer for myself, but I suspect it's near universal. All supernatural conjecture is bullshit including "spirituality" and "souls". When people say they had a spiritual experience, they really mean they had an emotional experience, but they don't think the word "emotion" has enough marketing value so they substitute "spiritual" to attempt to make their words have more impact. It's a wrong thing to do.

marcus says

No, I'm an agnostic.

That's a lie. You sure the hell ain't agnostic to the thousands of Native American, Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Hindi, Aborigine, and African gods. You dismiss all of them as ridiculous. That makes you a racist and a hypocrite.

marcus says

Wow, I wonder if anyone saw Dan's videos above and had a life changing break through.

The purpose is not to convince the brain-washed they are wrong, but to prevent the virus from infecting the next generation. In western society, we are accomplishing this right now. With every year, fewer people attend religious services or believe in superstitious nonsense. Eventually the shift to rationality will enable our society to deal with real problems like climate change. Hopefully, by then it won't be too late.

But the short answer to your question is yes. In the following video, a man who was very religious and becoming a pastor explains why he no longer believes in god. He contradicts every single assertion you, Marcus, make of atheists. The best thing you could do to alleviate your utter ignorance would be to watch this video, but your stubbornness and short attention span will prevent you from doing so. It's an hour and twenty minutes long. Too long for someone of your intellectual capacity. And yes, I am shaming you into proving me wrong.

www.youtube.com/embed/M5ZLuRYp8gk

FP says

My daughter taken to a religious meeting by her friend's parents, without our knowledge, and told that her "grandfather would not go to heaven if she does not believe in god."

Yet Marcus's double standard will not allow him to condemn those people. DarkMatter2525 nails this hypocrisy.

www.youtube.com/embed/tpz8PMcRJSY

FP says

Wow, I wonder if anyone saw Dan's videos above and had a life changing break through.

That's the problem with childhood indoctrination. It's hard to shake off.

As it is a form of child abuse.

indigenous says

First Way - The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:

Nothing can move itself.

If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.

Movement cannot go on for infinity.

This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Aquinas is starting from an a posteriori position. For Aquinas motion includes any kind of change e.g. growth. Aquinas argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest. Something which is moving is therefore unnatural and must have been put into that state by some external supernatural power.

1. Nothing can move itself.

Empirically false. Counter-example: rockets. Rockets move themselves by the law of conservation of momentum.

2. If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.

Self-contradiction. The first object in motion clearly does not need a mover then because in order for its mover to move it, its move would have to be in motion. Therefore it is clearly not the first object in motion. Proof by contradiction, no first mover exists.

3. Movement cannot go on for infinity.

Empirically false. Counter-example: the expansion of the universe.

4. Aquinas argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest.

False, by the laws of physics. There is no such thing as "at rest". There is only undergoing linear motion, i.e. motion without acceleration. Read any science text for an explanation.

I have just shown four of Aquinas's points to be wrong. Discrediting a single one would be sufficient to collapse his entire argument. The fact that all four fell is quite frankly, embarrassing. And people think that idiot contributed any knowledge to mankind? He's an embarrassment to western culture. Now stop masturbating, indigenous, and rape someone instead like Aquinas said is far less bad.

marcus says

HEY YOU says

Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

More profound breakthroughs in the making.

www.youtube.com/embed/c4psKYpfnYs

FP says

Really, Dan stops strangers on the street, knock on people's houses, to tell them that there's no god?

No, but on a Internet forum whose entire purpose, as stated by its creator, is to facilitate free speech and that even had a religion group before migrating to hashtags, I do engage in serious intellectual debate on the matter, mainly so that kids Googling "is there a god" can get a dose of rational, objective thought to counter all the nonsense the religious shove down their throats.

Much to Marcus's angst, the Internet makes it hard to suppress good ideas.

However, a few weeks ago two religious teens -- the nutty preachy kind -- knocked on my door to "share a prayer". Normally I would politely turn them away, but my mother was visiting, and she's somewhat religious. So I indulged them. They kept asking if there was something I wanted to pray for to make my life better. I simply answered world peace. When pressed if there was anything I personally needed, I simply stated that I was OK and everyone needs world peace. There was no hole in my life for them to exploit.

Personally, I felt sad that such young minds could already be so screwed up that they think praying has any affect on the world.

Dan8267 says

When people say they had a spiritual experience, they really mean they had an emotional experience, but they don't think the word "emotion" has enough marketing value so they substitute "spiritual" to attempt to make their words have more impact. It's a wrong thing to do.

Not true.Dan8267 says

Empirically false. Counter-example: rockets. Rockets move themselves by the law of conservation of momentum.

And who setup the rocket?

Dan8267 says

Self-contradiction. The first object in motion clearly does not need a mover then because in order for its mover to move it, its move would have to be in motion. Therefore it is clearly not the first object in motion. Proof by contradiction, no first mover exists.

No the 1st mover caused the motion, not the same thing.

Dan8267 says

Empirically false. Counter-example: the expansion of the universe.

We are talking about something that is exterior to the object.

Dan8267 says

quite frankly, embarrassing.

Agreed.

indigenous says

What if he already existed, the idea that he would/is be exterior to the universe(s) you cannot speak of him in physical universe terms, as in words. Word too come after actions not before, therefore God by definition cannot be described by words.

No supernatural entity can interact with or affect the natural world without breaking the well-known laws of nature. Any entity that obeys the laws of nature is, by definition, a natural entity and is subject to scientific inquiry.

Dan8267 says

No supernatural entity can interact with or affect the natural world without breaking the well-known laws of nature. Any entity that obeys the laws of nature is, by definition, a natural entity and is subject to scientific inquiry.

Bullshit, the 1st way...

indigenous says

And who setup the rocket?

If you are trying to argue that everything that exists must have been created, you are wrong for several reasons. First, if god exists then by this reasoning he must have been created by something else. Hence, your god isn't the ultimate creator.

If you argue that god simply exists without creation, then one can easily say the exact same thing about the universe. A universe that exists without creation is far more reasonable than a single sentient being that exists without creation. We know from evolution that life and intelligence can arise from natural forces alone. So our existence does not need explanation. The existence of the universe is in no way explained by a god, as it simply moves the question to how the even less plausible god exists.

www.youtube.com/embed/jEE2L2l3PAo

www.youtube.com/embed/KSU2Ya3i7Po

Finally, the very notion of A cause B requires that A precedes B temporarily. Time as we know it simply does not extend beyond the Big Bang. Therefore the very concept of something coming before the Big Bang is meaningless. Now if you can show us the math to generalize time into a bigger concept and the evidence to demonstrate that concept reflects reality, then go right ahead. There's a Noble Prize waiting for you.

indigenous says

No the 1st mover caused the motion, not the same thing.

Violates the law of conservation of momentum.

indigenous says

We are talking about something that is exterior to the object.

Watch the above videos.

Dan8267 says

If you are trying to argue that everything that exists must have been created, you are wrong for several reasons. First, if god exists then by this reasoning he must have been created by something else. Hence, your god isn't the ultimate creator.

Cept he taint an object.

Dan8267 says

If you argue that god simply exists without creation, then one can easily say the exact same thing about the universe. A universe that exists without creation is far more reasonable than a single sentient being that exists without creation. We know from evolution that life and intelligence can arise from natural forces alone. So our existence does not need explanation. The existence of the universe is in no way explained by a god, as it simply moves the question to how the even less plausible god exists.

Cept the universe is an object.

Dan8267 says

Finally, the very notion of A cause B requires that A precedes B temporarily. Time as we know it simply does not extend beyond the Big Bang. Therefore the very concept of something coming before the Big Bang is meaningless. Now if you can show us the math to generalize time into a bigger concept and the evidence to demonstrate that concept reflects reality, then go right ahead. There's a Noble Prize waiting for you.

Time by definition is a measure of objects. Therefore something caused time i.e. the universe.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

No supernatural entity can interact with or affect the natural world without breaking the well-known laws of nature. Any entity that obeys the laws of nature is, by definition, a natural entity and is subject to scientific inquiry.

Bullshit, the 1st way...

No. It's practically a truism.

Either the supernatural has to obey the laws of nature and thus are not supernatural, or the supernatural has to violate the laws of nature in which case the evidence of these violations would be as subtle as Republicans talking about their penises and how bangable their wives are during a presidential debate.

Dan8267 says

Violates the law of conservation of momentum.

He violates every one of the "laws", they are irrelevant outside of the universe.

Dan8267 says

Watch the above videos.

Splain them.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

If you are trying to argue that everything that exists must have been created, you are wrong for several reasons. First, if god exists then by this reasoning he must have been created by something else. Hence, your god isn't the ultimate creator.

Cept he taint an object.

If your god is not part of everything, then he is literally nothing. If he existed, then by definition he is a thing and is part of every thing, hence "everything".

But thank you for demonstrating what supernatural beliefs do to a human mind.

Dan8267 says

No. It's practically a truism.

Either the supernatural has to obey the laws of nature and thus are not supernatural, or the supernatural has to violate the laws of nature in which case the evidence of these violations would be as subtle as Republicans talking about their penises and how bangable their wives are during a presidential debate.

gibberish