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 529)

Showing posts 10,561 - 10,580 of21,342
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11233
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
No my destination is to reveal the only worldview to you that is actually logically sound and accountable. But the problem you have, is that you live in a house that is full of idols that you like. And the house I live in is bereft of your idols. So you look at my house and you turn from it in disdain. To which I point you to your foundations and show you they are built on shifting sand. And then I show that mine are built on the Rock. But the problem is, you are not really interested in looking at your foundations, but rather defending them. But as much as you defend them, they are shifting sand, and they will change and adapt to whatever your will dictates. Unless you are willing to accept that your will is not the absolute standard of truth and reality, then you will always be busy building sand castles, which are easy to kick over.
OK. Thanks for your interest.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11234
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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...
So the first two people created by your god screwed up royally and, therefore, billions of people have suffered ever since.

I sense a design flaw from your perfect god...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11235
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you certain about that?
;-)
Not completely. But I have yet to see any way to obtain certainty.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11236
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that it is impossible to know anything absolutely?
Yes.
If that is true, how can you deny Gods existence absolutely?
I don't. I simply don't see enough evidence to believe in a deity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11237
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

mtimber wrote:
if you will just adopt the first, most of your irrationality, which results from you rejection of it, will disappear: Love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, all thy mind, all thy strength and all they soul.
Let me paraphrase that for you: Submit. That really is the essence of the Good News.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11238
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry, I didn't see the "atheists club" sign.
Would you point that out to me?
I was under the misguided assumption that this was a discussion about atheism and religion.
But if this was just a thread for you all to back slap each other and tell each other what wonderful atheists you all are and how dumb everyone else is, I apologise for my intrusion.
When are you leaving?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11239
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
I applaud you for adopting the second great absolute moral standard that God decreed: Love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus was a johnny-come-lately regarding the Golden Rule:

ANCIENT GOLDEN RULES ANTEDATING CHRIST:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius (c. 551–479 BCE)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Lao Tzu

"Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat(c. 2040–1650 BCE)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BCE)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Siddhartha Gautama,(c. 563-483 BCE)

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - The Hindu Mahabharata [book] circa 400 BCE

[Others at http://www.thebelovedcommunity.net/golden-rul... ]

Do you know whether Jesus make any original contributions to moral theory - moral values unheard of before he spoke them?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11240
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, plenty of able physicists have expounded on it enough for it to be generally accepted that it is a fundamental law of the universe...
Which physicists have done so? Einstein? No. Schrodinger? No. Feynman? No. Fermi? No. Maxwell? No.

Perhaps you are mistaking philosophers for physicists. The only principle of causality I have seen in *any* physics course is the one that says that the position operators for events outside of each other's light cones are anti-commutative. In other words, if two events in spacetime are far enough apart that light cannot travel between them, then they are independent. That is the *only* version of causality up to PhD level physics.

In fact, I have never seen a coherent definition of causality in general. The attempts are *all* based on concepts like 'one things following necessarily from another' which are old, Aristotelian philosophy and not a part of any modern system of physics.

The 'First Cause' argument is NOT an argument from physics. It is purely philosophical and is, in fact, based on incorrect assumptions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11241
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

mtimber wrote:
You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.
Why not? You do.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11242
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So time existed before matter and energy existed?
As far as we know, they are coterminous. it is possible that all go infinitely into the past, but that is not known. It is also possible they all started at some point in the past.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11243
Jan 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
You want to debate religion and atheism fine. Start with why anyone should believe in your god.
I tried that. I stipulated to the existence of a creator god and asked him to argue for it being his god.

He wasn't interested.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11244
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the point.
It does not matter whether you confess it or not.
God has revealed Himself to you.
But you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.
Yes, I know that to maintain your belief system, you have to believe this. But it is false. No deity has 'revealed himself' to me.
If you persist long enough, God will hand you over to the reprobate reasoning that you want to hold onto and you will suffer the consequences of your own choices.
Remember, the Bible is the basis for my worldview.
You are an atheist that cannot account for the most basic transcendental arguments in philosophy, why would I reject the basis of my worldview and believe you instead?
The 'transcendental arguments' of philosophy can all safely be ignored as they are all meaningless.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11245
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
it is possible for something to feel both hot and cold at the same time. It is possible for an electron to be both at a location and not at a location at the same time. It is possible for a bacterium to be both disease-causing (in one species) and not disease-causing (in another) at the same time.
Understand and accept this and your conclusion will bring you to God...
Your God is a figment of your imagination. At best, it is you talking to yourself.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11246
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument rests on arbitrary claims, what is absurd about a worldview that accounts for morality, logic, rationality, science and the meaning of life?
But it does none of those.

Morality has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of deities. This is trivial to see: ask yourself if it is logically possible to have an evil creator of the universe. Clearly, such a proposition *is* logically possible, so saying morality is determined by what a creator says is simply wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11247
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
There you go, that is the issue in the Great Controversy. Satan is a threat to the cohesion of the universe.
Who's fault is that? Who let him loose into it?
mtimber wrote:
Humanity serves him. God has to deal with that.
For a guy with unlimited power, your god has a very sociopathic way of dealing with "problems".
mtimber wrote:
But first He gives man the opportunity to come over to Him.
If he cares about that, he needs to show his face - unless he is specifically excluding those of us that use our faculties of reason. From Bill Maher:

"I’m open to anything for which there is evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday’s Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, I’ll think ...“Oh look at that, I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the lord!"

Some of us were built to respond to evidence.
mtimber wrote:
Using your standard of morality, God is perfectly in His rights to judge mankind and issue punishment.
That must be your standard. I said the opposite:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11248
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is okay to destroy something that is not a moral agent.
And fetus' and dogs are not moral agents.
Then it is okay to destroy both.
I am not sure why you would disagree with that simple logical argument?
First, there is a scale of the degree to which morality applies to an action. For example, destroying a piece of wood that nobody owns and in a way that affects nobody else carries no moral weight. Destroying a bacterium also carries no moral weight even though that bacterium is alive. Destroying living things that are conscious carries some moral weight, but that can be outweighed by other factors such as the need to eat. Destroying self-conscious beings that reason morally carries a great deal of moral weight and should only be done under severe circumstances (self-defense, for example).

A dog is conscious, so there is some moral weight, so arbitrarily destroying a dog would be wrong. But, for example, killing a do for food would be morally allowed.

A fetus before about the 20th week of pregnancy cannot feel pain, is not conscious and cannot suffer. So the destruction of a fetus at that stage carries no moral weight. Once the parts of the brain processing pain are in place, though, I *do* think there is a moral weight that comes with the destruction of a fetus. But there is also a competing immorality which denies a woman the right to control her own body. The woman has the right to demand the fetus be removed from her body even if that removal kills the fetus. I do think that for fetuses of a late enough stage that pain is a real thing, there is a possible moral responsibility on the part of the doctor to attempt to preserve the life of the fetus while removing it from the woman's body. If that is impossible, it should still be removed, though.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11249
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the guy who believes arockandhisbuddiesdidit...
But to your main point.
Only something eternal and outside of time could create that which is in time.
Clearly false as stated. We create things that are in time all the, um, time.
The problem you have, is that conclusion obviously brings us to God, which you do not like.
No, the problem is that your argument is so far from being logical that it boggles the mind to think about it.

Causality requires time. Time is part of the universe. So the universe cannot be caused. The only way around this is if time is NOT part of the universe. That is the case in multi-verse theories, but then simply replace 'universe' by 'multi-verse' and you can run the same argument.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11250
Jan 23, 2013
 
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...
Oh dear, another dodge.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11251
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
Hey, you approve rape in certain situations, I don't think you should be any judge of morality...
But I'm right.

Are you saying that if you had to rape an unwilling woman to preserve the human race, that you wouldn't do it? What is the moral basis for that judgment?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11252
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
Your argument rests on arbitrary claims
What arbitrary claims?
mtimber wrote:
what is absurd about a worldview that accounts for morality, logic, rationality, science and the meaning of life?
It requires you to account for something much harder to account for: an intelligence that crafted those things.

With the will to believe comes the willingness to filter input to support the belief: confirmation bias. What that does to you, but not me, is allow you to accept special pleading that supports your willingness to believe. So, universes absolutely, positively need first causes, and anybody who thinks otherwise is irrational.

But when it comes to the god, well, it gets a pass fromsuch rigorous scrutiny - often excused by some ad hoc qualifier such as that the god exists in a privileged reality where nothing needs to make sense.

The will to believe permits that.

What you call my stubborn rebelliousness and deliberate blinding of myself to the obvious truth of god - a need to disbelieve - is really not that at all. It's merely the lack of a preference for believing - such as your will to believe. You've decided to believe. That's what faith is - deciding to believe.

I haven't done that, at least not in thirty-something years.

Without the will to believe, the god hypothesis adds nothing, and at great cost. If a universe looks like it needs a designer, a designer looks like it needs a designer. Obviously. If a cell looks designed, and if a universe looks designed, a god, whatever its qualities, would by contrast scream for a designer.

But not to you, right? That's what I see. And I can't show you. The condition prevents you from seeing it. Faith defends itself against evidence and argument, and I have nothing else to offer.

Look at this shocking admission from William Lane Craig, who plainly states here that the scripture is correct to him, no matter what evidence arises to contradict it:

"...And my view here is, that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit. In my heart. And that this gives me a self-authenticatin g means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right"

How close-minded is that? How strong a confirmation bias is that? How do you reach that mind? You don't.

Anyway, your arguments seem tortured to me, and you see them as airtight. We're at an impasse.
mtimber wrote:
You do not accept that, not because it is false, but because it contains something that you have pre-determined to reject and that is your accountability to God.
Because of your worldview and presuppositions, you can never really come to the evidence and comprehend.
Because basically, you don't really want to...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,561 - 10,580 of21,342
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••