patrick.net

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

indigenous says

Splain them.

They don't require explanation. If you do not understand those videos, you need to seek medical help to check for brain damage.

Dan8267 says

If your god is not part of everything, then he is literally nothing.

Sactly,Dan8267 says

If he existed, then by definition he is a thing and is part of every thing, hence "everything".

You had it right the first time.

HEY YOU says

Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

Dan8267 says

Comment 66

Well the obsession of someone with a being who doesn't exist to the extent that they would produce a comment as tedious as No. 66 is quite a commentary in itself--it must really be important to them. It makes me bored and fortyish just to try to wade through it--I was never able to finish it before a malaise set in. No one can over-estimate the entertainment value of these arguments though.

You sound pissy?

Not at all related to this conversation, but it was so damn funny and on the mark I have to post it. There's a lot of similarities between the religious and social justice warriors.

www.youtube.com/embed/5RM2SuMyYDU

Cept I'm not talking about religion.

indigenous says

Translation:

Translation:

The Wogster and Dan =

marcus says

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.

1. This point is beyond the point.
2. You are wrong about what I realize.
3. What the hell does not well defined but defined mean?

marcus says

And yet this does not force them to be atheists.

What has this to do with our discussion??? My statement was that one can only be an atheist with respect to a well defined deity.

marcus says

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.

Yes, I agree. And how does this contradict anything that I've written?

marcus says

FP says

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

No you didn't.

I didn't? But you just cited it in your comment. Well, here it's again in case you are playing dumb intentionally:
"...an absurd abstraction of a god, which in the end is as meaningful as "I believe in something."marcus says

You either don't understand my point or you are avoiding it. But that's okay.

I understand that you have no point because you have lost track of what this discussion was about.

"But that's okay" - what's this supposed to mean? How can it be not OK? What happens if it's not OK? You'd cry on the forum?

FP says

What the hell does not well defined but defined mean?

It means he needs bullshit room. No other entity needs to be defined so vaguely as to prevent discussion about it. That's a red flag right there.

Looks like DarkMatter made a video specifically for Marcus.

www.youtube.com/embed/Y201QzDdzbg

AKA the dangerous meme.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes

PS I don't see this as one of them.

FP says

marcus says

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.

Yes, I agree. And how does this contradict anything that I've written?

You're probably right there. If you agree that many or most clergy and a significant percentage of adult moderate practitioners of Catholicism, Judaism, moderate protestants and so on actually hold less than well defined definition of God, then I misunderstood your point here.

Maybe I misunderstood this.

FP says

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.

You're right about this being trivial, but then that could be said about many philosophical discussions. IT depends on whether you're interested or not in the question. But I'm not all that interested in the question of whether there is a god or not, which is why I leave it open. I don't need to know. Maybe it's my love of truth. I avoid being wrong by not committing to a position. OF course the atheist can be sure their belief (or disbelief) is true, by defining god in a silly way, which is what much of my discussion in this thread has been about.

By the way, the fanatical atheist does care VERY MUCH . They somehow know what beliefs are best for everyone, and they want to make the world a better place by helping everyone believe the same thing they do. I'm not talking just about not believing in fundamentalism (which is their run to type of religion when they want to generalize on to all religion over all time). According to them, we're talking all belief in God, that is to them any kind of belief is wrong. And yes, this is very much like the religious zealot.

The interesting question for me isn't whether or not god exists.

I'm interested in something that even some previously fanatical atheists are starting to realize. And that is that in these post modern times, starting somewhere in the middle of the last century, there has been a steep drop off in the developed world of the more reasonable religions, including moderate protestants, Catholics, Judaism etc. Europe and the US have seen a huge drop. Dan and I (both raised catholic but no longer practicing) are just two examples of a huge phenomenon.

At the same time, fundamentalism has grown an enormous amount. And it is responsible for a lot of the ignorance you see from the GOP today.

I am not at all convinced that the drop of in membership of what I will call "the better religions" is a good thing. I have an opinion, or maybe better to call it an hypothesis, that eliminating religion is not what we need, but rather we need modern sophisticated spiritual movements that can be there to provide not just the community that religions have often provided, but also satisfying the spiritual needs that people have.

When the only game in town is some hillbilly fundamentalist version it's worse than just sad. Because people are going to join for many reasons. The validity of those reasons or whether someone thinks they are above those reasons is irrelevant.

Now people will of course say humbug to the idea that people have spiritual needs. Or they might say what the fuck are these needs you speak of, or avoid comprehending my hypothesis in one of hundreds of other very easy ways. The easiest way for some would be to arrogantly and quickly dismiss what I'm saying as beyond comprehension.

God gets blamed for a lot of man's stupidity. The problem for people who don't like God is they don't want to be responsible for their own lives:

He designed this as a world of choice, we are free to screw up all we want, even those of us who are professing Christians, and God won't stop us. So that's God's fault.
We sin, even the best of us have done something wrong at some point, and we don't want to ask for forgiveness. God's fault.
We kill each other, and pollute the only planet He gave us to live on. God's fault.

Rather than admit our need for salvation, or need for self-discipline, or face our own limitations we blame God. And He knew we would, but still sent His son Jesus to die for us...

NuttBoxer says

Rather than admit our need for salvation, or need for self-discipline, or face our own limitations we blame God.

Rather than admit that God is beyond our comprehension, some like to say because of this or that, that God must not exist. It's another choice that God has given us.

marcus says

we need modern sophisticated spiritual movements that can be there to provide not just the community that religions have often provided

As far as the community, you can be served here:

www.youtube.com/embed/O1t-WEk0DOk

P N Dr Lo R says

Written from the scientific perspective of a flat earth society, without the insights of modern psychology, it nevertheless presents human nature with 100% accuracy by real people from ancient times. The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is as current as Days of Our Lives, the only thing that's changed are the clothing styles. That in itself is monumental.

All myths have such stories and they all represent - by definition - the core of human nature.
Just because this is the myth you inherited doesn't really mean it is superior to the myth of some tribes in Africa.

P N Dr Lo R says

The most basic evidence for God's existence is the creation itself--that "old book" claims that's enough in itself and anyone who can't see that is a fool.

The universe itself is the mystery. Our existence is the mystery. You don't need to attach some silly story to it. For what reason?
The entire notion that it had to be created is absolute BS, as explained above.

NuttBoxer says

The problem for people who don't like God is they don't want to be responsible for their own lives:

Actually the exact opposite is true. The "father in Heaven" is a substitute father that will take care of you. You are a child to him. And the entire world doesn't matter: it's only ashes and will go back to that. God will take care of that.

Atheists on the other hand have to grow up and take responsibility for it.
We see that with global warming and other environmental problems.

Heraclitusstudent says

As far as the community, you can be served here:

And these people and their beliefs are the ones who are aberrant. America and Western Europe are all part of what are called Christendom and where until very recently religious observance in the Judeo-Christian traditions were commonplace from time immemorial. The civilization that we enjoy wasn't founded in disbelief or secularism as its practiced and observed today. And it also accounts for the obsession with more and more government intervention because for the atheist the government is the ultimate source of benevolence.

Heraclitusstudent says

Just because this is the myth you inherited doesn't really mean it is superior to the myth of some tribes in Africa.

Well we certainly seem to live better than most tribes in Africa. "Myths" has become a commonplace term of derision today, as have things such things as "skydaddy" It's all couched in snotty Alinsky-style ridicule. I expect it was much the same in the Soviet Union prior to its collapse because you didn't deviate from the official law of atheism on pain of death and look how good their lives were.

P N Dr Lo R says

The civilization that we enjoy wasn't founded in disbelief or secularism

In fact it was. Once Christianity took over the Roman empire, it quickly proceeded to collapse. Religion ruled the west without opposition for a thousand years and it was the dark ages. No one tried to do anything better then. Just trying would have been seen as vanity or heresy. Once you believe that you are ashes and will go back to ashes and only the world after that is real, then nothing down here really matters.

It changed during the renaissance because people started to break free from mode of thinking. It's not a coincidence if Italian masters painted scenes from Greek mythology. They rediscovered the ancient world and its sophistication. All advanced artists and scientists in the period that followed were all bordering heresy and church condemnations: from Leonardo learning anatomy by dissecting cadavers, to Galileo, to Descartes that had to turn his writings in such ways that they would go through religious censure.

These people built our civilization, by breaking free of religion.

And yet just 73 years ago a nation could listen to a president deliver a Christian prayer over national radio during the dreary, 40ish days of World War II and not think anything inappropriate--my parents were 41 and 45 and I can assure you they approved of it:

www.youtube.com/embed/_8uvGjOHFcs

Today half the population would expire from apoplexy.