Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Question to the Athiests
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: A Question to the Athiests  (Read 45182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2010, 01:28:36 PM »

You have no control over "this world".

I have complete control over my portion of it, by definition.

There are plenty of people who believe in God (myself included) who are also involved in scientific research. ... Where is the controversy?  I've never seen one.

Then you haven't had your observations violate your faith, as would someone who climbed to the top of their holy mountain and discovered no throne of the gods there.

It doesn't matter what you believe lies outside the envelope of experience. The only thing I object to is people who lie about what is inside that envelope in order to rationalize their own irrational "faith".
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

blackie

  • Guest
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2010, 01:35:36 PM »

You have no control over "this world".

I have complete control over my portion of it, by definition.
:lol:
Logged

cavalier973

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
  • You can't take the sky from me
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2010, 02:33:52 PM »

The idea of gods is wonderful poetry, well matched by your poetic idea here. It really is a beautiful way of putting things.
Thanks!  It was rather good ;)

Each new discovery, each time the envelope of knowledge is pushed back, things that were attributed to "the will of god" and the like are found to be natural phenomena. When underlying forces are discerned, "the will of god" is pushed back further, remaining within the unknown.

Attributing things to the "will of God" and to the "workings of God" are two different things.  Did you mean to say the latter, here?  It is the will of God that we glorify Him, which we do when we work the way we're supposed to...creating and discovering--the old "subdue the earth, and keep it" mandate.  When we engage in activity that hurts, wastes, and oppresses, then we show evidence of our broken nature, not of God's will and/or workings. 

The big questions, such as "what was before what we see as the universe existed", "why are the constants of the universe these constants and not some other constants", are easily answered by saying "the will of god". And they always have been, even when the big questions were, "why does bread rise" and "why was my father struck by lightning while tending his flock of sheep in the middle of an open field during a thunderstorm?"

I take it that your answer to the above questions (the first two) are "We don't know...yet."  But operational science (as opposed to historical science) is incapable of ever answering those questions since no one was present at the beginning, and time travel is probably impossible.  We can use the principles of historical science to get a pretty good idea, but even there one is looking at evidence that must be interpreted according to some framework, and a Theistic framework can be as valid as a materialistic one, since both worldviews are essentially non-falsifiable.

People have made beautiful art out of this idea of the gods, they have written great books, come up with grand philosophies and techniques of torture, epic poetry and rationalizations for uncountable murders, all at the same time. It is the will of god that the white man should enslave the black and other lesser races, otherwise it wouldn't happen...right?
It's funny, but the abolitionist movement relied on the same Scriptures to argue that it was the will of God that the black man be freed...

The "holy" books were written by people, translated by people, aliterated, selected, discarded, rhymed and rationalized, all by people. As such, they communicate subjective human history beautifully.

Anyone who makes more of those books than that is deluding themselves.

I disagree.  That's pretty much all I can say, since we will always be talking past each other in this argument.  I believe that the materialistic worldview you seem to be endorsing is untenable, given such concepts as human emotions and ideas of consciousness.  You might claim that "someday" we will have materialistic explanantions for these things; indeed, we have explanations now that I find unsatisfactory.  When science has definitie evidence on how something like the process of metamorphosis "evolved", I might find their arguments for the evolved human consciousness more compelling.

It is my opinion that the religious mind is so insecure that "I don't know" frightens them more than all the really awful images that religions use to compel obedience from their followers. That's why I enjoy Ian's harping on the idea of christians and their belief in Hella and her infernal torture chambers.

So much less elegant than karma, but even buddhism relies on the "punishment" of having to do it all over again, endlessly, eternally, until somehow one gets it "right" this time.

Okay, I believe that the idea of karma and reincarnation are Hindu beliefs rather than Buddhist, but I could be wrong, and being a stupid Christian, I am incurious about whether I'm right or not.

Hell is more than eternal torment in flames.  It is separation from God, who is the point of man's existence.  Those who have rejected offers of redemption are technically in hell now, since they do not enjoy a relationship with their Creator--are indeed incapable of even desiring such a relationship.

Logically, it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that the gods do not exist. The scientific mind, rather than assume "the gods" as an ultimate answer, is capable of the one leap that the religious mind is too terrified to make:

"I don't know...yet."
Funny, when I read my stoopid Creationsist websites, whenever they are presented with scientific data that challenges their theory on how things work, they say essentially the same thing.  www.answersingenesis.org

Look around, this is it. There are no gods. All we have is what we have right here, right now. We have each other, we have this world and any other worlds we can reach to work with. We can make it better, or worse, but that is our choice, as individuals.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this last statement?  No, wait, you already said that there was none.

So I can either believe in a world that was set up by an Infinite Creator who speaks reality into existence; Who cares about me personally and wants the best for me, and at the end of my life promises carry me into a world of everlasting happiness.

Or I could take what you are offering, which, as far as I can tell, is a smug satisfaction that I am intellectually superior to the rubes of the world.

I wonder...I wonder...
Logged
For God and Free Trade

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2010, 03:08:27 PM »

I take it that your answer to the above questions (the first two) are "We don't know...yet."  But operational science (as opposed to historical science) is incapable of ever answering those questions since no one was present at the beginning, and time travel is probably impossible.  We can use the principles of historical science to get a pretty good idea, but even there one is looking at evidence that must be interpreted according to some framework, and a Theistic framework can be as valid as a materialistic one, since both worldviews are essentially non-falsifiable.

While technically true, a curious mind could examine the "meta-experiment" of the scientific method itself.  Those who act on the assumption of a materialistic universe have far surpassed their competition in predictive ability.  Do you believe that to be merely coincidental?
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2010, 03:51:06 PM »

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.

@ Kenneth:  Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong".  The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL

He wildly over-responded with a straw-man argument to the little I said.  He was fail.

As a reminder, this is exactly what I said:

Quote
I like these comments.  In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.)  Some just don't recognize the source.

His "response" was a diatribe addressed at something entirely different.
Logged

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2010, 05:51:21 PM »

1) Identify the straw man. 

2)Prove your point that " In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.)  Some just don't recognize the source."

You are making the claim.  Back it up or don't tell others they are wrong.
Simply stating it doesn't make it so.
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2010, 06:05:26 PM »

You're entitled to be wrong.

great reply, idiot.

Your response was so long-winded and out in left-field, I'm happy just to let you be wrong and not wig out and call you an idiot.

@ Kenneth:  Fatcat put time into a thoughtful rebuttal of your points and you put your fingers in your ears and start humming?
Your method= FAIL
You clearly don't care b/c you're "happy to let him be wrong".  The problem is you refuse to explain why.
That also = FAIL

He wildly over-responded with a straw-man argument to the little I said.  He was fail.

As a reminder, this is exactly what I said:

Quote
I like these comments.  In short, 1.we all get the same conscience 2.from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.)  3.Some just don't recognize the source.

His "response" was a diatribe addressed at something entirely different.

just cause you only wrote a line doesn't mean theres only a lines worth of response to be had.

its ironic you think I've wrote too much when you've wrote pretty much nothing to support your claim.

If i just wrote one line back I'd have been wasting my time with the same pointless (you're wrong, you're fail) dick swinging that you think passes for discussion.

I've done much to prove

a) we don't all have the same system of ethics (addresses point 1)

b) ethics are the result of biological, cultural and personal evolution, not from a magic creator / ethics are not innate (addresses point 2)

c) I don't get my ethics from a higher power, and am grieved by the notion that i could since the majority of what people mean by "creator" is a sadistic monotheistic abraamic homophobic psychopath (addresses point 3), which is why i did "left field" discussion showing how many major religions have ethics that not only i don't share, but the majority of people in the world don't share, because of b)

The fact you can only re-iterate that you think I'm wrong, and don't address any of the points i raised just goes to show you have fuck all to fall back on.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 01:36:05 PM by fatcat »
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2010, 08:34:42 PM »

tl;dr.  This is why I didn't waste too much time in the beginning.  What I said is very simple.  You want big harry argument with someone.  That would not be me.
Logged

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2010, 08:40:42 PM »

The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2010, 08:42:41 PM »

The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.

Fine with me.  I'm not selling bibles.
Logged

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2010, 09:28:39 PM »

The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.

Fine with me.  I'm not selling bibles.
What about salvation?  You got any of that for sale?
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2010, 04:13:08 AM »

The BIBLE = TL;DR
Sum it up for me.

Fine with me.  I'm not selling bibles.
What about salvation?  You got any of that for sale?


I'm a consumer, not a vendor.
Logged

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2010, 10:54:07 AM »

Know any good vedors?  I'm in the market if the price is REASONABLE and the services competitive. 
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2010, 11:01:00 AM »

Know any good vedors?  I'm in the market if the price is REASONABLE and the services competitive. 
I'm satisfied with mine but they don't have a marketing wing so you'll have to do the research on your own.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2010, 11:03:42 AM »

I was thinking about something "sporty" yet reliable.  Plus 10% seems a little high. I'd like to negotiate that fee down to 5% plus amortize it into the life of my contract.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Question to the Athiests

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.