On Atheism vs. Christianity

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I had one additional question for CoinOperatedBoy:

You stated:
Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak.

I ask you why is such a question intellectually weak? And if it is so weak why have so many great minds contemplated and discussed this very question? The entire realm of philosophy basically began trying to answer this question.

It's weak because there is no meaningful way to answer it, and the intent of the question itself is vague to the point of absurdity. The answer, if one exists, would be different for every man who asks, and only he could provide it. I will leave the empty generalizations to the philosophers you admire, and concern myself instead with the purposes I choose for myself.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe.

Ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite set of finite elements. Again, the integers are an easy example. Every single integer is "finite," but the set of all integers is infinite.

The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

You're simply wrong, and you don't appear to have to capacity to recognize it.

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe. I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate. But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Do you have faith in what you indicated above... That is, do you believe that to be true absent the proof that it is true? IF so I presume it comforts you to know this... Notice I said 'know this'... Faith does that to folks... Once they have faith in something, anything they know it... feel it... sense it in their being...in their mind. IF the answer is no... I don't have faith in it... but it is the only thing that makes sense, that is fine too.. But, is that faith?
I think not... I think it is a deduction based on the information you accept as true and the extrapolation there from. A theory.
The existence of God is a theory too... If you can't find the proof of God in the reality of our own existence. It is all about what one accepts as true and where that leads them... We are limited by our own minds in what we are able to accept, it seems to me.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: spittledip
First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe. I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate. But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Math is the language of the universe. When you attempt to speak it here, it's a strange and unparseable babble. Your notions of the finite bubble universe and its composition remind me of the apocalyptic corner preacher, eyes rolled back in his head, arms raised to heaven, speaking in tongues with no angels around to hear him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
E: This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Intelligent Design pretends to be a theory and so the burden is on those who believe it to prove it, but God is a matter of faith and if you could prove He exists it would not be faith to believe, would it?

Holy shit. The whole point of all this has just been to believe in something unprovable? To have faith in your (or someone else's) imagination or fantasy abilities? This god and related dogma put forth is just a sideshow?

I was talking to the religious about religious faith. Why did you pipe in? You aren't being asked to believe in anything especially a god that doesn't exist that you don't believe in. You aren't going to fool shira with this post, trying to put words and theories in my mouth that I don't have and argue against them and then pretend you won some sort of victory. You don't have enough imagination yourself, to invent God so why imagine he's the product of somebody else's imagination. Most folk who believe in God feel some sort of connection that is not amenable to words, it seems to me. They experience something that to them fit the notion of God. They might be pink elephants to you but it looks like intoxication to me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe.

The universe is the collection of everything that exists. The real universe is the collection of everything that is real. The natural universe is the collection of everything that is natural. The physical universe is the collection of everything that is physical. Does that help you understand how I regard the universe?

I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate.

A description is a linguistic object, not a feature of reality.

But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

Repeating a non-sequitor doesn't make it any more true with each repetition. I've already explained the error in your reasoning.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Quite not. I simply used the negative integers as a model. I know it isn't a feature of reality -- I only brought it up because you claimed that infinite regress is logically contradictory. Please try to keep up.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe.

Ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite set of finite elements. Again, the integers are an easy example. Every single integer is "finite," but the set of all integers is infinite.

The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

You're simply wrong, and you don't appear to have to capacity to recognize it.

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe. I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate. But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Do you have faith in what you indicated above... That is, do you believe that to be true absent the proof that it is true? IF so I presume it comforts you to know this... Notice I said 'know this'... Faith does that to folks... Once they have faith in something, anything they know it... feel it... sense it in their being...in their mind. IF the answer is no... I don't have faith in it... but it is the only thing that makes sense, that is fine too.. But, is that faith?
I think not... I think it is a deduction based on the information you accept as true and the extrapolation there from. A theory.
The existence of God is a theory too... If you can't find the proof of God in the reality of our own existence. It is all about what one accepts as true and where that leads them... We are limited by our own minds in what we are able to accept, it seems to me.

If you are asking me if I believe in God and Christ without proof, the answer is "yes." There is the experiential part that is seems difficult to convey to people who have no concept of things that are beyond the natural world. I suppose we are living in 2 different worlds, and trying to get them to see reason is impossible. They have to see something else. It is probably a waste of time I suppose. Of course even when God did all those miracles in the wilderness the people still didn't believe.

I guess you raise a good point that I probably should examine in myself. I suppose this is what Moon was trying to say but I didn't recognize it.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe.

The universe is the collection of everything that exists. The real universe is the collection of everything that is real. The natural universe is the collection of everything that is natural. The physical universe is the collection of everything that is physical. Does that help you understand how I regard the universe?

I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate.

A description is a linguistic object, not a feature of reality.

But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

Repeating a non-sequitor doesn't make it any more true with each repetition. I've already explained the error in your reasoning.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Quite not. I simply used the negative integers as a model. I know it isn't a feature of reality -- I only brought it up because you claimed that infinite regress is logically contradictory. Please try to keep up.

You really are not understanding what I am saying, which I can tell from your responses, and from reading my own replies it seems it is most likely due to my less than stellar communication skills. I think that is why we are going around in circles.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

You really are not understanding what I am saying, which I can tell from your responses, and from reading my own replies it seems it is most likely due to my less than stellar communication skills. I think that is why we are going around in circles.

That's great, but I can assure you that I have had this conversation a thousand times before. I know what you're trying to say, because its what a lot of theists commonly misunderstand about these subjects. The problem is that it is just wrong.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe.

Ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite set of finite elements. Again, the integers are an easy example. Every single integer is "finite," but the set of all integers is infinite.

The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

You're simply wrong, and you don't appear to have to capacity to recognize it.

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe. I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate. But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

Do you have faith in what you indicated above... That is, do you believe that to be true absent the proof that it is true? IF so I presume it comforts you to know this... Notice I said 'know this'... Faith does that to folks... Once they have faith in something, anything they know it... feel it... sense it in their being...in their mind. IF the answer is no... I don't have faith in it... but it is the only thing that makes sense, that is fine too.. But, is that faith?
I think not... I think it is a deduction based on the information you accept as true and the extrapolation there from. A theory.
The existence of God is a theory too... If you can't find the proof of God in the reality of our own existence. It is all about what one accepts as true and where that leads them... We are limited by our own minds in what we are able to accept, it seems to me.

If you are asking me if I believe in God and Christ without proof, the answer is "yes." There is the experiential part that is seems difficult to convey to people who have no concept of things that are beyond the natural world. I suppose we are living in 2 different worlds, and trying to get them to see reason is impossible. They have to see something else. It is probably a waste of time I suppose. Of course even when God did all those miracles in the wilderness the people still didn't believe.

I guess you raise a good point that I probably should examine in myself. I suppose this is what Moon was trying to say but I didn't recognize it.

I'm just jabbering about stuff...

I think what Moonster is saying, has said and probably always will say is: The barrier to God is one's own ego... but not only the barrier to God but to anything the Ego denies...

Now before you run off to get an Egoectomy... I have to say that there is no organ or part of an organ that is the Ego nor will you find a soul with the finest MRI... It don't exist my Attending Physician said. So I guess God would use the term Soul to define a Contra Ego. Where the Ego is mans rationalization of stuff and the Soul is Gods... They both contain in the same manner the result of mental process... apparently. Assuming God exists, of course.

So why can some easily find God... and others scoff at the notion... and still others say maybe... but I need more proof... :+) I mean... we all agree the stars exist, the moon and all sorts of stuff... we see it or we accept what someone said about it all. But when it comes to God.. some want to take pictures others want to have him in for dinner and others just accept God as God with out seeing or meeting or anything... I think what allows this is how the individual's mind function works... like how can two people be so different... one an INFP Psychiatrist and the other an ESTJ 1st Sergeant. (Myers-Briggs) One believes in God the other not... I figure that folk's mind function enables or dis-enables an understanding of stuff Math or Music, Art, lots of stuff and God. The reason I figure that way is because the most ardent atheist can find a God... when their 'thinking' process allows it or demands it.. It seems something in that person changes... It works both ways... I've noticed..
I have no answers for others about God... only for me.. It may be that the warm and fuzzies of belief are preordained in our DNA... like wanting to be loved or hating. Some folks are quite content to go through life with out the need for a God while others have to have a God to live... Maybe all them folks in China that we call pagan have a God that we don't understand... To each according to their needs and ability... or like that.
All I do know is that I'm a happy camper and I believe in God... I know folks who do not and are just a happy as I am... I guess, anyhow.
IF someone asked me to show them the path to my happiness in God... I'd have to point them to a mirror... and then say.. "Find what makes you content in your existence" Find what makes sense to you... Seems God would operate that way given if God is God he designed the contraption that thinks... and would have a pretty good idea on how to reach folks. In other words, I believe in God because I can. And I believe in the Big Bang cuz it makes sense...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Well... I read some of the responses that were posted to my earlier state about science and religion and atheism.

I was happy to see that some appreciated the post (more than expected) and I saw that some didn't (not surprising at all).

I also wanted to say that I didn't used to be Christian or 'religious' at all. I didn't really start believing in God until I started getting deep into the nuts and bolts of science. The more i learned the more i realized that science can't answer the most interesting questions that face humanity, at least the most interesting questions in my opinion?

Call me dimwitted, call me stupid... but my questions are answered.

But for the of sake argument, to the folks who called me dimwitted... answer these questions for me:

1) where did all this mass and energy that we observe in the universe come from? or do you not think this question is important? If you say 'the big bang'... what cause 'the big bang and what was the form the matter and energy before the big bang and where did that come from? If you don't know where mass and energy came from do think science will eventually figure out the end sum of this problem? What give you 'faith' that science will do so?

2) what is the purpose of life/existence? Or do we have no purpose? If we have purpose, what gave us purpose? If we have no purpose, then is our very existence and possibly the existence of the universe completey arbitrary and accidental? If we have no real purpose why do you adhere to a moral or ethical code and why should others do the same?


I had one additional question for CoinOperatedBoy:

You stated:
Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak.

I ask you why is such a question intellectually weak? And if it is so weak why have so many great minds contemplated and discussed this very question? The entire realm of philosophy basically began trying to answer this question.

Are you really sure about this.. If your ad/m/an of science and God than you will know the the possiabities are almost limitless. Science tells you this. Christ also says the same the paths are many ,But only one true Trueth.

You look at the Words that I believe every Human ask himself. (Why am I) and assume its simplistic thinking . You may be right I am not the judge who is omnipresent.

But I asked MYself Why I am at a very early age .So I thought about it more than a few times. Latter because of my parents choosing I was raised in religion . I wasn't a good kid. But when we were taught the lesson of Moses recieving Gods 10 laws. Moses did ask God his name , as the people would ask . The Lord did rely . I AM that I AM .

Now I was young when I asked myself Why AM I , Than of course I didn't make it to the next SELF questin With Reply . Why AM I /!!/ I AM that AM !!/ Because the lesson of moses put Iam that I am was A godly reply . Which I found very weak reply. Because without the lessons I would have come to Admit to self That Iam that Iam .
So I always believed That was a poor ans. forgive my questioning Lord. But there were other things that troubled me about the Bible . Angels Having Sex with Women of earth . Now Thats FLESH ! They had offspring ,Thats Flesh! So I am hereing all this spiritual teachings. Thats Kinda Sexy and very FLESHY! God is Flesh I ask myself. Or Is this really about GOD. I think not its about man . THE HRCC invented the trinity which goes against The Laws GOD did give Moses. Iam thinking So much trueth ending in a lie. Not likely . More than likely it was meant to hide a Simple Trueth and what Prophecy is all about its undenieable. You said Why AM I is so simple of self question . Thats where we were. We are Now at a place in time Were More are saying I am that I am . Like Moon.

Its a normal progression with so many . But look at all the people who are badly stuck at Why AM I. Still asking after the Living WORD did fulfill the knowledge that is ever lasting life with GOD.

There Is ALSO ONE other name for GOD or so said . I will become what I become . This is the Lesson that Christ Did Bring us.

Your so simple self ask human question is the First Step to Enlightenment.

Look at them in the natural order of things Science if you will.

WHY AM I <= Is this really simple or is it the foundation to trueth?
I am That I AM
I will Become what I Become

Here is your trinity. Mans Path to Enlightenment. Were Man and God know one another in realway an undeniable way. FOR out of all those millions of possiabities . Yjere is only one path to enlightenment . One path to GOD as Christ did Teach us that Path . BUT the HRCC and others have destroyed those teaching there dogma and canon law. GOD Judgement be his own .

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

If you are asking me if I believe in God and Christ without proof, the answer is "yes." There is the experiential part that is seems difficult to convey to people who have no concept of things that are beyond the natural world. I suppose we are living in 2 different worlds, and trying to get them to see reason is impossible. They have to see something else. It is probably a waste of time I suppose. Of course even when God did all those miracles in the wilderness the people still didn't believe.

I guess you raise a good point that I probably should examine in myself. I suppose this is what Moon was trying to say but I didn't recognize it.

I'm really not sure why we are the ones 'not seeing reason' when your point of view is to believe in things without evidence.

 

[dguy6789]

People confuse chemical reactions in the body and hallucinations with divine experiences. Jerk off or smoke some weed and you'll feel special too, doesn't mean that you're realizing or feeling religion.

 

[LunarRay]

The human is capable of believing in stuff with out evidence. Those who do will attest to this fact.. or it may already have been gleamed from some posters here... That humans have this Faith capacity does not indicate that those who don't exercise this capacity are unreasonable but, rather, when they wish for proof of what they already know has no proof for some purpose other than gaining insight into the capacity to exercise faith it appears somewhat unreasonable.

But then... why would the Post Office have a sign on the entry door at ankle height that indicates 'Seeing Eye Dogs Only'... or Braille on the Bank drive up window...

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
E: This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Intelligent Design pretends to be a theory and so the burden is on those who believe it to prove it, but God is a matter of faith and if you could prove He exists it would not be faith to believe, would it?

Holy shit. The whole point of all this has just been to believe in something unprovable? To have faith in your (or someone else's) imagination or fantasy abilities? This god and related dogma put forth is just a sideshow?

I was talking to the religious about religious faith. Why did you pipe in? You aren't being asked to believe in anything especially a god that doesn't exist that you don't believe in. You aren't going to fool shira with this post, trying to put words and theories in my mouth that I don't have and argue against them and then pretend you won some sort of victory. You don't have enough imagination yourself, to invent God so why imagine he's the product of somebody else's imagination. Most folk who believe in God feel some sort of connection that is not amenable to words, it seems to me. They experience something that to them fit the notion of God. They might be pink elephants to you but it looks like intoxication to me.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt (hopefully, you realize this is a public board and anyone on the planet can view it and comment). If you noticed the heading, it was to you - not shira or anyone else. I was just excited that I might have gleaned some insight into believers. I don't particularly care whether you believe in a god, gods or zeus. The only annoying thing is your arrogance (and others') that your position is the right one and anyone who disagrees is a lesser being. They're not.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
...
But then... why would the Post Office have a sign on the entry door at ankle height that indicates 'Seeing Eye Dogs Only'... or Braille on the Bank drive up window...

:laugh:

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
E: This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Intelligent Design pretends to be a theory and so the burden is on those who believe it to prove it, but God is a matter of faith and if you could prove He exists it would not be faith to believe, would it?

Holy shit. The whole point of all this has just been to believe in something unprovable? To have faith in your (or someone else's) imagination or fantasy abilities? This god and related dogma put forth is just a sideshow?

I was talking to the religious about religious faith. Why did you pipe in? You aren't being asked to believe in anything especially a god that doesn't exist that you don't believe in. You aren't going to fool shira with this post, trying to put words and theories in my mouth that I don't have and argue against them and then pretend you won some sort of victory. You don't have enough imagination yourself, to invent God so why imagine he's the product of somebody else's imagination. Most folk who believe in God feel some sort of connection that is not amenable to words, it seems to me. They experience something that to them fit the notion of God. They might be pink elephants to you but it looks like intoxication to me.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt (hopefully, you realize this is a public board and anyone on the planet can view it and comment). If you noticed the heading, it was to you - not shira or anyone else. I was just excited that I might have gleaned some insight into believers. I don't particularly care whether you believe in a god, gods or zeus. The only annoying thing is your arrogance (and others') that your position is the right one and anyone who disagrees is a lesser being. They're not.

It's not so much that "my beliefs are better than yours neener neener neener" it's more that any belief that has no foundation of evidence is inherently less likely to be correct than one that is. It is insulting to consider a view point based on nothing to be on par with one that is based on science.

 

[Moonbeam]

d: It's not so much that "my beliefs are better than yours neener neener neener" it's more that any belief that has no foundation of evidence is inherently less likely to be correct than one that is.

M: No evidence that could persuade you. A believer may have lots of evidence.

d: It is insulting to consider a view point based on nothing to be on par with one that is based on science.

M: It is not a scientific view. It isn't in the same ball game and can't be judges by scientific rules. You don't practice religion with science so don't apply your scientific prejudices to it. The way to tell if a religion is real is by its effect. Does the light of God enter the world via the heart of the believer?

 

[LunarRay]

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
I put that in quotes cuz I'm sure I read that over at Moonbeam's house.. But there we go again... the old mind at work again.
It seems to me... truth requires knowledge... or it is nice to have some knowledge to determine something is true. Belief is far more liberal... ya don't have to dissect the frog to believe it has a frog heart but if you went ahead and did that you would know it to be true.. you'd have gained some knowledge.
So how does that apply to God...
Well.. what is God... or what criteria would we assign to God... ah.. a miracle... ok.. God has to defy what we generally accept to be a law of the universe... say Gravity... Here floats this rather old looking person... just floating there.. Is that God? Take another example... I see this rather bearded fellow spouting all sorts of love to folks he don't even know... Is that God?
Now if you had a choice which of the two would you pick to be God... ? Well you figure the proof is in the miracle... and discount the guy filled with love...
To me the one who fits my criteria would be both the floating guy and the hippy. But if I had to choose... I'd choose the hippy... How on earth could I make that irrational choice... Well... for one I can't use earthly criteria... but more importantly Love is good the hippy loves so the hippy is good... the floating guy... is only floating but I'll accept he is doing something science will have to work on for awhile... In any event, they'll probably never accept either as God.. wouldn't be prudent.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
snip

Umm... you don't really understand the nature of probabilities and evolution.

I do... and more to the point, the dudes that published the peer review article did.

So answer my series of questions? Where did all the mass and energy in our universe come from?

You'll note i am refraining from name calling here but if you are gonna call me stupid wrt to science you had better know some serious science yourself... which it appears, at least, that you know some math.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're putting ideas in my mouth that I never put forth. I don't believe in any origin of the universe. I think that the naturalistic explanation is more probable, but I most certainly am in no way wedded to such an explanation. Either way, the validity of the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe as it currently stands has no effect on the validity of a supernatural origin.

The origin of the universe is currently pretty much impossible for us to discern. It might always be that way, who knows? Just because we have difficulty understanding something doesn't mean that rational people decide a sky beardo did it instead.

This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Okay i apologize for putting words in your mouth...

So are you saying you don't have ideas concerning the origins of universe? none whatsoever?You said 'currently pretty much impossible'... so do think science will able to eventually figure it all out?

How about the other questions along the lines of the 'purpose of life'?

Also... as far as evolution goes.... and i am fully every bit an evolutionist.


The burden is on me to demonstrate my claim that atheism is just another religion in the grand scheme of things... and i did that. In order to answer questions concerning the origins of the universe, atheist have to make faith based decisions just like 'religious types' do.

That what is was saying originally and i demonstrated why i think that is the case.

Not a single atheist has yet answered my questions about the origins of universe in this thread...

And as I also said, if you don't think the origin of the universe is important or understanding what our 'purpose' in life is important... then leads to a whole series of other questions and conversations.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I had one additional question for CoinOperatedBoy:

You stated:
Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak.

I ask you why is such a question intellectually weak? And if it is so weak why have so many great minds contemplated and discussed this very question? The entire realm of philosophy basically began trying to answer this question.

It's weak because there is no meaningful way to answer it, and the intent of the question itself is vague to the point of absurdity. The answer, if one exists, would be different for every man who asks, and only he could provide it. I will leave the empty generalizations to the philosophers you admire, and concern myself instead with the purposes I choose for myself.

There is no meaningful way for you to answer it... it is perfectly simple question for any religious person to understand and answer.

So do you believe man has no purpose or reason for being alive in this world? If your answer is no, then why is wrong to kill another man? If they have no purpose in being alive what is the crime in killing them, then? Their existence... pointless. Their lifetime and work... meaningless.

I, of course, believe we have purpose so our lives, our planet, etc. are inherently valuable due to that purpose.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're putting ideas in my mouth that I never put forth. I don't believe in any origin of the universe. I think that the naturalistic explanation is more probable, but I most certainly am in no way wedded to such an explanation. Either way, the validity of the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe as it currently stands has no effect on the validity of a supernatural origin.

The origin of the universe is currently pretty much impossible for us to discern. It might always be that way, who knows? Just because we have difficulty understanding something doesn't mean that rational people decide a sky beardo did it instead.

This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Okay i apologize for putting words in your mouth...

So are you saying you don't have ideas concerning the origins of universe? none whatsoever?You said 'currently pretty much impossible'... so do think science will able to eventually figure it all out?

How about the other questions along the lines of the 'purpose of life'?

Also... as far as evolution goes.... and i am fully every bit an evolutionist.


The burden is on me to demonstrate my claim that atheism is just another religion in the grand scheme of things... and i did that. In order to answer questions concerning the origins of the universe, atheist have to make faith based decisions just like 'religious types' do.

That what is was saying originally and i demonstrated why i think that is the case.

Not a single atheist has yet answered my questions about the origins of universe in this thread...

And as I also said, if you don't think the origin of the universe is important or understanding what our 'purpose' in life is important... then leads to a whole series of other questions and conversations.

No you really didn't prove atheism as a religion at all. You assumed that atheists must hold faith based opinions on the origins of the universe, and that is simply incorrect. In order to brand atheism as a religion you created the false premise that atheists must take a conclusive position on the origin of the universe. In fact since atheists base their beliefs on evidence, this is the exact opposite of what an informed atheist would do, because we do not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the origins of the universe. I think both the purpose to life and the origin of existence are important, but I would never claim to have some sort of answer to them because the evidence simply isn't there. This is why atheism is not a faith based religion.

I have no idea if science will eventually figure it all out, it doesn't really matter. Science is the best tool that we have for figuring out what is true, and so I'll take what it can give me. Even if science completely fails in explaining existence it in no way means that made up crap that people decided explains the world is any better.

I believe that matter has probably always existed, and so an origin to the universe is unnecessary. It's certainly not an opinion that I hold strongly, and if evidence were to show my opinion to be incorrect I would change it immediately. It's simply a probability judgment that I've made. Probable does not mean true, and that's exactly why atheism isn't faith.

The whole 'atheism is just another religion' argument will never fly, I'm sorry but it's completely unsupportable.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you really didn't prove atheism as a religion at all. You assumed that atheists must hold faith based opinions on the origins of the universe, and that is simply incorrect. In order to brand atheism as a religion you created the false premise that atheists must take a conclusive position on the origin of the universe. In fact since atheists base their beliefs on evidence, this is the exact opposite of what an informed atheist would do, because we do not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the origins of the universe. I think both the purpose to life and the origin of existence are important, but I would never claim to have some sort of answer to them because the evidence simply isn't there. This is why atheism is not a faith based religion.

I have no idea if science will eventually figure it all out, it doesn't really matter. Science is the best tool that we have for figuring out what is true, and so I'll take what it can give me. Even if science completely fails in explaining existence it in no way means that made up crap that people decided explains the world is any better.

I believe that matter has probably always existed, and so an origin to the universe is unnecessary. It's certainly not an opinion that I hold strongly, and if evidence were to show my opinion to be incorrect I would change it immediately. It's simply a probability judgment that I've made. Probable does not mean true, and that's exactly why atheism isn't faith.

The whole 'atheism is just another religion' argument will never fly, I'm sorry but it's completely unsupportable.

The statement in bold above may be your faith based decision, my friend... you believe something that science does not support. That is your temporary conclusion to question of the origin of universe.

Sure your religion is inherently flexible and versatile but you still making a decision to believe something although no evidence supports it... that is just how humans work, we have to believe something.

So do you believe man has a purpose or reason for being alive in this world?

Same thought process that I asked Coin more or less.... is it wrong to kill another human? Why?

Edit:

Also... we need to clear up some definitions. An atheist is person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme or supernatural powers... God or a bunch of Gods.

You are not an atheist so I'm not sure why we are arguing. You sound more like an agnostic to me... in which case we simply see the world differently and like i said... we just aren't gonna see eye to eye.

But the questions about purposes of life still apply to agnostics.

 

[dguy6789]

Atheism is not a religion. I've already covered this and it still hasn't been refuted, just ignored. Go back to preschool.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Atheism is not a religion. I've already covered this and it still hasn't been refuted, just ignored. Go back to preschool.

The portents of this argument seem to have eluded you completely.

I already have a Ph.D. so preschool is no longer necessary... better luck next time.

Edit:

Interesting that you quote Martin Luther King Jr., a devout Christian and man of faith, in your signature.