patrick.net

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.

P N Dr Lo R says

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

The Germans probably also prayed God to help them.

Heraclitusstudent says

The Germans probably also prayed God to help them.

Well we won--we were right, they were wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

as long as they believe it. Which I don't.

And what does that establish?

Some bible thumpers (Mormon looking) trying to spread there bs came up to me the other day as I was taking wife and kids to see the Jungle Book. They asked me if I wanted to hear about the lords message and I told him "hell no", my salad bar Christian in name only wife was pissed.

P N Dr Lo R says

Heraclitusstudent says

as long as they believe it. Which I don't.

And what does that establish?

That what I wrote about it was not based on believing it?

P N Dr Lo R says

Well we won--we were right, they were wrong.

"we won therefore God was on our side".
"The country grew to a powerful nation from almost nothing, therefore God is on our side."

That's the ultimate self-righteousness and arrogance that is so common in the US.

P N Dr Lo R says

Heraclitusstudent says

The Germans probably also prayed God to help them.

Well we won--we were right, they were wrong.

We lost in Vietnam. God switched sides?

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Obviously, we didn't follow gods orders in Vietnam.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

We aren't even following gOD's nice benevolent sweet laws at home, with regards to this. America is lost, and gOD will punish us until we return to his holy laws and biblical marriage!