patrick.net

humanity says

He actually believes he has proven this ?

My position, which no one has been able to refute, is that anyone who believes the girl's death is tragic does not truly believe in the afterlife. Bashing me doesn't refute this position.

humanity says

I don't think he even cares if this character "Dan" that he has created is a total douchebag.

Yes, anyone who says a truth you don't like is by definition a douchebag. There's nothing more douchey than a truth that cannot be denied.

When one cannot attack an argument, attack the person making the argument and hope that the audience is dumb enough to be duped.

kashif313 says

As far as other claims made by atheists that there is nothing after death; they cannot give 100% proof to support their claim.

Take a computer. Turn it off. Unplug it. Smash it to little bits. Microwave the bits. Feed the microwaved bits to a lizard. Does the computer still download porn from the Internet?

Take a human brain. Kill it. Decompose it. Feed the decomposing bits to microorganisms. Does the brain still produce thought?

Yeah, there's no way I can be 100% certain that the brain isn't still working. After all, electricity is a pure mystery that can never be explained, nonetheless exploited to create a world-wide communication network. No one can understand how electronics work, not even in principle. It's a mystery, like why the sun rises every day and why the tides go in and out. That can never be explained.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ShjTbghQGcU

kashif313 says

Puzzling are Atheists in my book. Why you may ask? Simply because they claim that God has nothing to do with creation.

Why assume only one god? Why not tens of thousands of gods bickering over how the universe should operate and each with different moral codes? The assumption that there is one and only one god is going far more out of on a limb than assuming no god. Monotheism is a far more radical premise than atheism.

Nonetheless, the existence of god is irrelevant to the arguments D1, D2, and D3. If your afterlife exists, regardless of whether or not there is a god, then it is perfectly reasonable to murder babies to send them to paradise. If you don't accept that conclusion, then you don't accept the premise that the afterlife exists. You are simply lying to yourself.

The Original Bankster says

this is basically why they outlawed suicide so early on in the history of religions. People killing themselves to get to the afterlife became an epidemic in early iterations of religious ideas. Yes, humans really are that dumb.

Ah, but it is dumb if and only if the afterlife is a lie. The stupidity is in the premise, not the conclusion.

Heraclitusstudent says

While atheist can't give 100% proof afterlife doesn't exist,

Prove that it is impossible to disprove the afterlife. That's an assumption.

I most certainly can disprove specific afterlife myths just like I can disprove specific myths like Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. You can show the myths were hoaxes created by people. You can show contradictions in the myths. You can show that the myths contradict the laws of nature.

Something isn't "undisprovable" simply because many people want to believe it. In fact, I would argue that anything that is undisprovable in principle is either meaningless or fictitious. Real things have consequences that can be observed. That's a law of nature. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If heaven exists, it has a thermodynamic footprint that can be observed.

Furthermore, there are an infinite number of ridiculous assumptions one could make if you're only criteria is that the assumption is not disproved. You could assume that an evil god created the universe and wants man to murder babies. Are you going to act on that possibility? Are you going to teach children about that "possible afterlife"? If not, then it is hypocritical to teach them the Christian afterlife. There's no more reason to accept one hypothetical afterlife than the other.

upisdown says

LOL, you and others, don't believe that there's an actual person named Dan, that you and them have read his posts and responded to, yet believe in a god and an afterlife though.

Toooooooo funny.

What's really ironic is that I am both god and an atheist. I don't believe in myself. Yet somehow I manage to post on PatNet even though I don't exist. It's a mystery that man cannot understand. I work in mysterious ways. The faithful should worship me and send lots of money to me. I will reward them in the afterlife.

And it makes just as much sense to believe in what I just wrote as it does to accept any other afterlife myth. Can anyone here prove with 100% certainty that I did not create the universe?

kashif313 says

define atheism for us. If everything is not by chance AND there is no God...then how does our physical world come into existence? Is there a hybrid approach or are there now various "sects" of atheism?

Atheists deny the existence of God.
The question is: are you denying what is known about how the universe evolved from the big bang to what it is now?

If not: news flash for you: no divine intervention is known to have happened.

If your proof of the existence of God (and the truth of your religious dogmas) is that the universe exists as it does, I'd say that's a tiny bit flimsy.

Heraclitusstudent says

Agnostic people claim they don't know the unknown and that is the 100% correct position.

The pussy position is not necessarily the correct position. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

In fact, so-called agnostics are not really agnostic. They disbelieve in Thor. They disbelieve in Native American gods. They disbelieve in ancient Sumerian gods. They disbelieve even in polytheistic myths that are part of still practiced religions.

Do you have any idea how many gods there are in India alone? Don't give me the bullshit that any agnostic thinks that maybe Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, plausibly could exist. No agnostic puts Garuda on equal footing to Yahweh in terms of possibly existing.

So-called agnostics almost universally reject polytheism. They are not open-minded. They are conformists. There's a big difference.

Agnostic: Maybe this guy's legit.

mell says

Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ro0yZyVR0Qk

There was nothing before the Big Bang. Time and space are curved at the singularity. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang is like asking what is located one mile north of the north pole; it is a meaningless question.

As such, the universe was not created and no one created it. Time is finite in the past direction, and the universe has existed for all of that finite amount of time.

If a god had created the universe, that would just move the question to what created the god? If the answer is that the god was not created and always exist, then just conclude that the universe was not created and always exist. Or to put it in terms that the religious would have: the universe itself is god, but god is not a sentient being. God is unaware, has no morality, and does not even know of the existence of mankind. God is just the mundane laws of nature, and it provides no afterlife and no moral guidance. Can you accept that god? Can you be agnostic about that god? God is nothing more than the universe itself, and all religions are lies about god.

Now, if you are willing to redefine god like that, I'm a firm believer in god. Of course, such a god merits understanding, but no worship. And there are no holy books, no resurrected Jesus, no afterlife, no soul, no free will. Are you still willing to call it god?

Never make a statement like "atheists cannot answer the question" unless you're damn sure they can't. This was an easy question to answer; all it takes is honesty.

kashif313 says

Also, do we really understand the Big Bang? Can you mathematically explain the singularity found in the big bang and black holes? If you cant explain this, then the phenomena of existence itself cannot be explained. Is this your claim to the "known" - you're citing the big bang theory and hanging your hat on it? Wow - nice argument.

Wow... The big bang happened. Existence exists. Ergo God exists, ergo afterlife exists, ergo religions must be true - all of them. Ergo everything that happened after the big bang was meant to happen....
Seriously. What crap!

mell says

Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

The fact that something is not known - or even cannot be known - is not evidence that what is known is not known, and is even less evidence that some random other statement (like God exists) is true.

Heraclitusstudent says

kashif313 says

Also, do we really understand the Big Bang? Can you mathematically explain the singularity found in the big bang and black holes? If you cant explain this, then the phenomena of existence itself cannot be explained. Is this your claim to the "known" - you're citing the big bang theory and hanging your hat on it? Wow - nice argument.

Wow... The big bang happened. Existence exists. Ergo God exists, ergo afterlife exists, ergo religions must be true - all of them. Ergo everything that happened after the big bang was meant to happen....

Seriously. What crap!

Never said all religions are true.

By the way, you never answered the question - explain singularity - the point at which physics and the what is "known" breaks down....still waiting. I know it's far easier to call names and deflect from the argument presented than to actually address the issues at hand. Perhaps you know as well as I do that even the "known" universe isn't really known. Can you explain dark energy and dark matter? That is 96% percent of what is known and even that is an unknown. In fact, we do not even have scientific/mathematical equations to explain the phenomena.

So, what exactly is the basis of your argument? Let's start with there is no God....you can take it from there. Im listening....

Dan8267 says

Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

I'm not an agnostic myself, but agnosticism is valid from a purely logical perspective, and is mostly sufficient to eliminate random beliefs about things we don't know.

Dan8267 says

There was nothing before the Big Bang. Time and space are curved at the singularity. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang is like asking what is located one mile north of the north pole; it is a meaningless question.

This is simply not true unless you put yourself above the experts (physicists, believers or not) who do not have an answer to this question but different theories exist. And it's not a challenge, it's a fact. The rest you wrote I have no issues with, there are plenty of people who believe that the universe and mankind is one and may just exist without a special "creating conscience", but that doesn't mean that there cannot be other dimensions of existence.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

I'm not an agnostic myself, but agnosticism is valid from a purely logical perspective, and is mostly sufficient to eliminate random beliefs about things we don't know.

I have heard this before and even mentioned this in a previous post, I am not sure where this is coming from. In this modern materialistic age I would say most youngsters are not afraid of anything (except for not having the latest and greatest smartphone) so it would seem illogical to me that today's agnostics are afraid of someone. Maybe some of them are simply too lazy or pragmatic to ponder over this, but I don't think they are afraid. And especially if you acknowledge that you may not comprehend some or all aspects of the paranormal - should it exist - then it makes somewhat sense to focus on the moment and carpe diem.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

The fact that something is not known - or even cannot be known - is not evidence that what is known is not known, and is even less evidence that some random other statement (like God exists) is true.

Then it will end as it always does with anyone who believes in chance and not a Creator...to you your way and to me mine-I do not follow your thought process and you refuse to acknowledge the work of a supreme being. Fair enough, let us agree to disagree and live out our lives according to our tenets - that's freedom.

Good Luck

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=12694

Just a quick search result example for the open discussion around the big bang.

kashif313 says

By the way, you never answered the question - explain singularity - the point at which physics and the what is "known" breaks down....still waiting.

What happens at the singularity is not something that is known. It's not described by known laws of physics.

And it is not relevant either to what I said above.

kashif313 says

Perhaps you know as well as I do that even the "known" universe isn't really known. Can you explain dark energy and dark matter?

There are no scientists or atheists here that claim everything is known. That is a strawman and a false dichotomy: "either everything is known to science or science must be wrong".

I repeat again: The fact that something is not known - or even cannot be known - is not evidence that what is known is not known, and is even less evidence that some random other statement (like God exists) is true.

And we do have a chain of known facts between the big bang and now. So what? How does this mean that everything "happened by chance"? How does it imply that "God must exist"?

I answered your question. Now answer mine.

Dan8267 said, "Why assume only one god? Why not tens of thousands of gods bickering over how the universe should operate and each with different moral codes? The assumption that there is one and only one god is going far more out of on a limb than assuming no god. Monotheism is a far more radical premise than atheism."

This is a typical argument of those ignorant of actual biblical text. The first commandment specifically states, "You shall have no OTHER gods before me." This is the strongest possible implication that the deity in question believes in other gods, and is jealous of His/Her worshippers. Other places mention magical practitioners and what to do about them (if they do bad things, kill them), and there's a lovely little passage about King David (I think) using a necromancer to call up the spirit of Samuel.
It was only later that catholic theologians downplayed the mystical side of their faith, choosing to relegate God as the source of all things magical.
This is simply not the case, however.

kashif313 says

I do not follow your thought process and you refuse to acknowledge the work of a supreme being. Fair enough, let us agree to disagree and live out our lives according to our tenets - that's freedom.

You mostly refuse to acknowledge what is in fact known.

Your thinking is clear: only top down design can lead to the world as it is.

That's ignoring the fact that bottom-up organization is known to happen, it can be simulated in computers and there is nothing miraculous about it.

Freedom of ignorance indeed.

Quigley says

This is a typical argument of those ignorant of actual biblical text. The first commandment specifically states, "You shall have no OTHER gods before me." This is the strongest possible implication that the deity in question believes in other gods, and is jealous of His/Her worshippers.

Ah... HE must be the real God because he says so. The bible must be true because it says so. Checkmate.

Thank you so much for your proof!

Dan8267 says

Don't give me the bullshit that any agnostic thinks that maybe Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, plausibly could exist. No agnostic puts Garuda on equal footing to Yahweh in terms of possibly existing.

Garuda may have been the prototype of Yahweh. We already know that Akenahten started monotheism with sun god worship.

So-called agnostics almost universally reject polytheism. They are not open-minded. They are conformists. There's a big difference.

There are lots of agnostics who do not reject polytheism or "spiritualism" in the very vague sense.

Heraclitusstudent says

Quigley says

This is a typical argument of those ignorant of actual biblical text. The first commandment specifically states, "You shall have no OTHER gods before me." This is the strongest possible implication that the deity in question believes in other gods, and is jealous of His/Her worshippers.

Ah... HE must be the real God because he says so. The bible must be true because it says so. Checkmate.

Thank you so much for your proof!

hmm, he was saying that the text merely put the deity forward as a tribal deity. Nobody was talking about "the real God."

Reality says

hmm, he was saying that the text merely put the deity forward as a tribal deity. Nobody was talking about "the real God."

I think Dan's argument was "why not imagine something completely different, while we are making things up."
Saying that the Christian god is (was originally) a tribal deity among many doesn't really answer that. Why not stick to the Norse mythology? or the Hindu one?
The only answer is "because the bible says this and that".

Been posted on Pat.net before, bears repeating:

mell says

This is simply not true unless you put yourself above the experts (physicists, believers or not) who do not have an answer to this question but different theories exist.

I'm familiar with the various theories, and none of them use time in the collequal sense. Therefore, the conventional definition of "create", which required that the creator exists in time before the creation, does not apply. Every physicist will tell you that a singularity is a point in which the conventional concept of time breaks down.

In any case, the statement that the one true god is the non-sentient, amoral universe itself still stands.

Quigley says

This is a typical argument of those ignorant of actual biblical text. The first commandment specifically states, "You shall have no OTHER gods before me."

I'm well aware of what your Bible says, but why should I accept it?

">

Your Bible is pure fucking evil. It is a terrible basis for morality.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

hmm, he was saying that the text merely put the deity forward as a tribal deity. Nobody was talking about "the real God."

I think Dan's argument was "why not imagine something completely different, while we are making things up."

Saying that the Christian god is (was originally) a tribal deity among many doesn't really answer that. Why not stick to the Norse mythology? or the Hindu one?

The only answer is "because the bible says this and that".

No. Christianity became influential because a borderline convert (Constantine) either won a major battle and later became Roman Emperor, or that he claimed to have made the conversion because he saw a need for the society to embrace a new religion when the old Roman religion's hold on the society was falling apart.

Parts of Norse myths are still with us, such as Santa Clause. In the land of its tribal origin, they would not have picked a pine tree either, or red sock boots.

thunderlips11 says

Been posted on Pat.net before, bears repeating:

Looks like Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Reality says

Garuda may have been the prototype of Yahweh.

Did you just pull that out of your ass or do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that?

In any case, a god that has a prototype is a false god.

Reality says

There are lots of agnostics who do not reject polytheism or "spiritualism" in the very vague sense.

Show me one agnostic who thinks that Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and orgies, plausibly exists.

Show me one agnostic who thinks that maybe the universe was created by smurfs. Agnostics are highly selective in what they are agnostic about. Their criteria is that if the society they find themselves in is populated by people who believe in myth X, they pretend that myth X is plausible. Otherwise, they say that myth X is ridiculous.

Conformity is not open mindedness.

Dan8267 says

Did you just pull that out of your ass or do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that?

I already told you the logic: Akenahten of ancient Egypt started Monotheism as we know it by mandating sun god worship.

In any case, a god that has a prototype is a false god.

No more false than "government." Both are creatures of people's faith. More importantly, most people apparently need something to worship. "Government" just happens to be a far more dangerous thing to worship than "God"/"gods."

Reality says

Looks like Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Evidence of Climate Change

Evidence of god

Comparing the indisputable fact of climate change to religion is utterly retarded. At this point in time, anyone who claims that climate change is a religious myth is an idiot.

Reality says

No. Christianity became influential because a borderline convert (Constantine) either won a major battle and later became Roman Emperor, or that he claimed to have made the conversion because he saw a need for the society to embrace a new religion when the old Roman religion's hold on the society was falling apart.

I certainly hope no one believes the Bible today for that reason.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

There are lots of agnostics who do not reject polytheism or "spiritualism" in the very vague sense.

Show me one agnostic who thinks that Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and orgies, plausibly exists.

I do. And I'm working on convincing more girls between the ages of 18 and 25 to do the same. Want to come to my Dionysus Party this summer? Bring a pair of boobs and 3-hole fun.

Dan8267 says

Show me one agnostic who thinks that maybe the universe was created by smurfs. Agnostics are highly selective in what they are agnostic about. Their criteria is that if the society they find themselves in is populated by people who believe in myth X, they pretend that myth X is plausible. Otherwise, they say that myth X is ridiculous.

Conformity is not open mindedness.

Logic can not exclude the hypothesis that the entire universe is run by smurfs, who pause the universe at every moment and look up the rule books and move the objects according to the rule books for the next moment. So there, I'm a smurf agnostic.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Looks like Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Evidence of Climate Change

Evidence of god

Comparing the indisputable fact of climate change to religion is utterly retarded. At this point in time, anyone who claims that climate change is a religious myth is an idiot.

Notice, you avoided the critically important "Anthropogenic" part.

That "anyone who denies . . . is an idiot" attitude is precisely what the cartoon illustrates

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

No. Christianity became influential because a borderline convert (Constantine) either won a major battle and later became Roman Emperor, or that he claimed to have made the conversion because he saw a need for the society to embrace a new religion when the old Roman religion's hold on the society was falling apart.

I certainly hope no one believes the Bible today for that reason.

When the Christian Bible fails to do the job, the vast majority of the world's population will be converted to the Koran or something else. The big government religion is just not durable, as the Romans found out when their polytheism declined in the face of big imperial government.

Reality says

Notice, you avoided the critically important "Anthropogenic" part.

People are so funny. Like it's hard to find where the CO2 comes from.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Notice, you avoided the critically important "Anthropogenic" part.

People are so funny. Like it's hard to find where the CO2 comes from.

The vast majority of CO2 comes from non-human sources. The biggest being probably the dynamic release and absorption at the ocean's surfaces.

Reality says

I certainly hope no one believes the Bible today for that reason.

When the Christian Bible fails to do the job, the vast majority of the world's population will be converted to the Koran or something else.

Yep, I'm sure the folks at Fox News will figure out something.

Reality says

People are so funny. Like it's hard to find where the CO2 comes from.

The vast majority of CO2 comes from non-human sources. The biggest being probably the dynamic release and absorption at the ocean's surfaces.

...which explains the spike since the 50's?
I mean, we know how much coal, oil and gas is burnt every year, right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

I certainly hope no one believes the Bible today for that reason.

When the Christian Bible fails to do the job, the vast majority of the world's population will be converted to the Koran or something else.

Yep, I'm sure the folks at Fox News will figure out something.

The real reason is human behavior and statistical expectations from one's own behavior. If one's own "staying good" can not be expected to be rewarded and "doing bad" can not be expected to be punished, a significant minority but large enough proportion of people will ill behave to bring down the society. Law enforcement in human history, even now, can only catch a tiny fraction of ill behaving individuals. Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly. The cost of bureaucrats catching every criminal and potential criminal is just too high to be ever feasible.