Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Psychology Today

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

Comments (Page 528)

Showing posts 10,541 - 10,560 of20,831
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11213
Jan 23, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? I have never seen it mentioned in any of my graduate level physics classes. Nor in any chemistry classes. I *have* seen it claimed in *philosophy* classes, but those are not science.
<quoted text>
Time certainly did NOT have a cause, because causality is based on the concept of time. I do not know whether matter and energy had initial causes. probably not, but this is still an open question.
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand the claim and I do think it is nonsense. Time cannot be caused by the nature of causality.
So time existed before matter and energy existed?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11214
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Redundant. You've said it all, and I've rejected it. Please don't keep repeating yourself.
<quoted text>
That's a little more interesting. Go on.
In Eden, Eve was offered the opportunity to reason apart from God.

Foolishly, she decided that that was desirable.

Since then, man has been wise in his own eyes, setting himself up as being able to reason apart from God.

To reason above God.

It is this condition, that you are displaying.

You want to reason apart from God, to sit in judgment on God.

This theme is spread throughout the Bible and is the essence of the sinful nature.

A created being, who fancies himself more powerful than the Creator and thinks he can sit in judgment of the Creator.

Because of that, your reasoning is separated from Gods reasoning and ends up being reduced to foolishness.

aka:

arockdidit
etc...

You see if you reject the source of logic and reason, you end up rejecting logic and reason.

This is manifested in a contradictory and arbitrary worldview, which you are displaying.

Proof is in the pudding etc.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11215
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't.
But it seems plausible. Something it would seem needs to be self-created or eternal, and the multiverse option answers the fine-tuning objection with minimal abuse of Occam.
So you don't know.

If you don't know, how can you deny God indeed Created the universe?

It seems your argument is anything is plausible except God.

Roughly translated, meaning, God is not allowed a foot in the door.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11216
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand the principle of presuppositions and that all worldviews have them.
An absolute truth is self attesting.
By the fact that all of knowledge, both phsyical and transcendentant will attest to it, if it is in fact absolutely true...
If you do not subscribe to that, then knowledge is impossible and you cannot know anything.
OK.

Could you say it again in other words? For example, what does "An absolute truth is self attesting" mean? What is an absolute truth, and how does it attest about itself?

I don't think that I need to even consider absolutes or the transcendent to have knowledge, let alone ascribe (anything) to them (a better word than "subscribe"). I'm pretty that sure my dog has knowledge, and rarely considers such things.

Let's look at the "-scribes" :

ascribe - attribute something to a cause or person
conscribe - to enlist or enroll
prescribe - advise and authorize the use of (a med or treatment)
proscribe - forbid, esp. by law; denounce or condemn.
describe - give an account in words
circumscribe - restrict within limits, draw a figure around
inscribe - write or carve words or symbols on something
subscribe - arrange to receive something regularly by paying in advance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11217
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'point' was not relevant to my argument.
<quoted text>
No, I do not.
<quoted text>
Only some of the atrocities found in the Bible are related to judgment. For instance, God demands genocide of the Canaanites. You could perceive this as a form of judgment, though explaining how Canaanite children, who are younger than the age of accountability, is a problem.
Atrocities within the laws would include the idea that a rapist should marry his victim. Any person with the slightest amount of empathy would see that this is further punishment for the victim; an excellent example of not loving thy neighbor.
Man was given responsibility over all the earth.

When man rebelled everything suffered the consequence.

Sin does that, it doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone, including your children.

Love does not struggle with responsibility, but selfishness does.

So when mankind does something that brings judgement on them and their family, rather than take responsibility for it, they shake their hands at God and accuse Him of wrong doing...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11218
Jan 23, 2013
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your reaction the events in the OT in which
1) God commands the Israelites, after defeating foreign nations, to kill the men and take their women as wives. Surely no one could reasonably believe that women would consent to marrying their husband's murderers, so the consummation of such marriages would surely be rape.
2) God commands that rapists, as punishment, must marry their victims. Again, we can be sure that no women would reasonably want to marry her attacker, so any subsequent sexual encounters would also be rape.
In both instances, God's commands result in approved sexual assaults.
I doubt your rendering of those laws are balanced and unbiased...

So would not engage your premises.

I have seen too many of these arguments based on an extremist atheistic rendering of the scripture to know a red herring when I see one...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11219
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Man was given responsibility over all the earth.
When man rebelled everything suffered the consequence.
Sin does that, it doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone, including your children.
Love does not struggle with responsibility, but selfishness does.
So when mankind does something that brings judgement on them and their family, rather than take responsibility for it, they shake their hands at God and accuse Him of wrong doing...
Back to the evasion.

None of this addresses the contradiction within your religion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11220
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OK.
Could you say it again in other words? For example, what does "An absolute truth is self attesting" mean? What is an absolute truth, and how does it attest about itself?
I don't think that I need to even consider absolutes or the transcendent to have knowledge, let alone ascribe (anything) to them (a better word than "subscribe"). I'm pretty that sure my dog has knowledge, and rarely considers such things.
Let's look at the "-scribes" :
ascribe - attribute something to a cause or person
conscribe - to enlist or enroll
prescribe - advise and authorize the use of (a med or treatment)
proscribe - forbid, esp. by law; denounce or condemn.
describe - give an account in words
circumscribe - restrict within limits, draw a figure around
inscribe - write or carve words or symbols on something
subscribe - arrange to receive something regularly by paying in advance.
Here is an example from the laws of logic:

The law of non-contradiction.

A dog cannot be a dog and not be a dog at the same time.

What is the basis for that logical claim?

The law itself.

But when allowed to be tested against all knowledge, it is seen to be true.

It points to its own authority as its authority claim and then everything outide of that assumption or presupposition attests that claim.

Hence it is self attesting, yet valid...

Understand and accept this and your conclusion will bring you to God...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11221
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt your rendering of those laws are balanced and unbiased...
So would not engage your premises.
I have seen too many of these arguments based on an extremist atheistic rendering of the scripture to know a red herring when I see one...
Deuteronomy 21
"10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required.

Numbers 31
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Keep the women as prizes of war.

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

Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker.

Please tell me where my interpretations are unfair. Women were viewed as property. You took them as wives, and at that point, since they were your property, rape was impossible.

Deuteronomy 22 gives two scenarios in which rape is punished.
1) You rape a girl promised to another man - you die.
2) You rape a girl not promised to anyone - you pay her father 50 silver and must marry her.("you break it, you bought it")

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11222
Jan 23, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just making up a bunch of nonsense.
First you need to show some evidence that there is such a thing as existence "outside of time" and then we can discuss "eternal".
Perhaps you should start with the definition of "time" itself.
I can't wait to read his response to this post, he's guaranteed to slip-in the word 'absolute' somehow. His BUZZ WORD (For now.)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11223
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
I think you will find the principle of "first cause" is quite well known in physics and accepted by most of the scientific mainstream community. Time, energy and matter all had a cause. And that cause by basic logical inference must be outside of time, energy and matter... Otherwise that would need a cause... Do you not understand that? I assume you do not, if you think it is nonsense.
It's an ancient argument also already refuted elsewhere.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_arg...
[2] http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.mx/2010/05/wil... [number 1.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11224
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
It is clear that you allow that rape is appropriate given the right circumstances.
Thank you. I try to be clear.
mtimber wrote:
Of course, you are driven to this absurd conclusion, rather than jettisoning your bankrupt worldview founded on illogical and contradictory premises.
I'd be attempting to save the human race. Anything less would be bankrupt.
mtimber wrote:
And this by itself should be warning enough to you. But there is no absurdity you will not go to in your pursuit of the denial of God. And the longer you debate on this, the more this will become apparent to any rational person, not completely hung up on their presupposition that God is not allowed to exist...

I am just warning you ahead of time so you can spare yourself further embarrassment..
Thanks for the heads up. You're a prince of a guy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11225
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
You are asking the wrong question. You are really asking this: Do you accept my extreme interpretation of the Bible, unaided by the Holy Spirit, and prejudiced by my extreme antagonism towards God?

I think you know what my answer to that will be...
"Absolutely"?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11226
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a dodge.
If you want me to respond to a point you make, you must provide a rational basis for that point and actually address the point I made and not a strawman that I did not make.
In other words...you dodged.

Yeah, we know.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11227
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So now, you are trying to demand I back up a claim I never made.
Next you will be asking me to tell you what he had for breakfast this morning...
Actually, those were your exact words...but, whatever.

You sure dodge a lot when cornered.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11228
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your house is bringing down the value of the rest of the neighbourhood.
Do you see how arbitrary claims work?
It wasn't so much an arbitrary claim as it was sarcastic mocking of your ongoing lameness...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11229
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Deuteronomy 21
"10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required.
Numbers 31
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Keep the women as prizes of war.
Deuteronomy 22
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker.
Please tell me where my interpretations are unfair. Women were viewed as property. You took them as wives, and at that point, since they were your property, rape was impossible.
Deuteronomy 22 gives two scenarios in which rape is punished.
1) You rape a girl promised to another man - you die.
2) You rape a girl not promised to anyone - you pay her father 50 silver and must marry her.("you break it, you bought it")
There is a bible study here that you can use if you so wish:

http://bible.org/seriespage/deuteronomy-21

Or you can of course just render the most extreme atheistic rendering of the text that you want to...

The real question is, why is any of the above wrong in an atheistic worldview?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11230
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
In Eden, Eve was offered the opportunity to reason apart from God.
Foolishly, she decided that that was desirable.
Since then, man has been wise in his own eyes, setting himself up as being able to reason apart from God.
To reason above God.
It is this condition, that you are displaying.
You want to reason apart from God, to sit in judgment on God.
This theme is spread throughout the Bible and is the essence of the sinful nature.
A created being, who fancies himself more powerful than the Creator and thinks he can sit in judgment of the Creator.
Because of that, your reasoning is separated from Gods reasoning and ends up being reduced to foolishness.
aka:
arockdidit
etc...
You see if you reject the source of logic and reason, you end up rejecting logic and reason.
This is manifested in a contradictory and arbitrary worldview, which you are displaying.
Proof is in the pudding etc.
So its all Eve's fault.

No wonder you hate women so much...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11231
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an ancient argument also already refuted elsewhere.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_arg...
[2] http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.mx/2010/05/wil... [number 1.]
Refuted or opposed?

There are some people that believe they are lizards, doesn't mean they have refuted the fact we are not...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11232
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. I try to be clear.
<quoted text>
I'd be attempting to save the human race. Anything less would be bankrupt.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the heads up. You're a prince of a guy.
No problem, here to serve.:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,541 - 10,560 of20,831
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••