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 532)

Showing posts 10,621 - 10,640 of21,328
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11294
Jan 24, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure about that?
Contrast someone who loves their neighbour and denies your god, with someone who loves your god but denies their neighbour.
Which one gets their ticket to heaven?
In any event, why did it take your god tens of thousands of years before he got around to telling people to love their neighbours?
After all, an omniscient cosmic mega-being like yours must have known about the Golden Rule and how it is one of the highest measures of good ethical behaviour. Yet your god chose to ignore it until the New Testament.
Of course, while your god was ignoring the Golden Rule, other gods from other belief systems (Hinduism, Jainism) were advocating its use.
In summary, the New Testament tells us that the way to get into Heaven is not that we observe the Golden Rule. Instead, it's that we love Jesus, and to your god, that is more important than following the Golden Rule. It's not nice to harm your fellow humans but as long as you end up loving Jesus with all your heart then you'll be OK for your ticket to Heaven
Jesus was quoting the old testament...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11295
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?
As *you* stated it, yes. If appropriately stated and used, then no. Socrates had a number of discussions based on this law showing its misuse.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11296
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, submit to rationality and reason.
One does not 'submit' to rationality and reason. One *applies* reason to find the rational.
Do you have a problem with that?
Of course you do, as revealed in Genesis.
Your belief in a deity has nothing to do with rationality nor reason.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11297
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call "God" - the principle god in the West - can be ruled out, so no foot in the door for that god.
But that is not true for all possible gods as a class. Not yet, anyway. They still have a toenail in the door.
I'm working on it, however. I am considering an argument that borrows from the intelligent design people, who offer statistical arguments like Hoyle's fallacy - the unlikeliness of a junkyard 747 forming from a tornado - as evidence that irreducibly complex entities can't form uncreated.
What could be more complex than a god? How could it exist uncreated? What argument for a god doesn't collapse when applied to the god itself? You say that we need a god to account for the laws of logic or the laws of physics. What laws must exist for a god to exist and to continue to exist without falling apart? Where did those laws come from?
I suspect that gods are impossible, but I don't think that a statistical argument is proof against the existence of one, even though the Christians like to say that something less likely to occur than one chance in 10E-50 is impossible: http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudo...
This might be an example of the kind of thing that you, your bible, and two thousand years of Christianity warn us about: thinking for ourselves. I can see why the priests don't care for it.
Your argument collapses, because until you can account for the origin of the universe, you have no ultimate standard from which to argue...

To use knowledge absolutely, you have to account for knowledge absolutely.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11298
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that. I said that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time.
That is not what you stated.

But leaving that aside.

Why is it meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is a question that has engaged the minds of many people throughout time, in their search for answers...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11299
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you argue using logic?
You have just denied the first law of logic.
The law of non-contradiction...
No, I have not. The problem is that you have to be very careful about the application of this law. For example, it is NOT a contradiction to say that an electron has a probability of being in two different places at the same time. But many people seem to think it is. it is not a contradiction for something to be both hair and black even though hair and black are not the same thing.

I probably know more about logic and its foundations than you will ever know. Yes, we *assume* certain things, like propositional logic and the quantifier calculus. We can then *assume* certain statements about mathematic. From those assumptions, we can derive a great deal in a formal way. BUT, there is no a priori reason to *assume* that logic and mathematics apply to the real world or exactly how they apply. We *use* the formal system to help us understand the real world, but that understanding is a process involving hypothesis making, testing, and model building.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11300
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?
A poodle is both a dog and not a dog.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11301
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why are you here philosophising polymath257?

You have just denied that it is a rational means for acquiring knowledge?

Engaging in rational thought to answer transcendentant questions is of no value to you?

Then why are you then arguing that reason is circular and self attesting?

You realise these are philosophical issues you are engaging in.

Another inconsistency in your worldview.

You are not selling your atheism very well.

I have to abandon reason and philosophy, to be on the same intellectual level as you...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11302
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One does not 'submit' to rationality and reason. One *applies* reason to find the rational.
<quoted text>
Your belief in a deity has nothing to do with rationality nor reason.
Where do the laws of logic come from?

Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).

Thats what I thought...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11303
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what you stated.
But leaving that aside.
Why is it meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is a question that has engaged the minds of many people throughout time, in their search for answers...
As I have said, causality requires time in its definition. So it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time or about causality in the absence of time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11304
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
Why are you here philosophising polymath257?
You have just denied that it is a rational means for acquiring knowledge?
Again, what I *actually* said is that most philosophers don't know enough to do it correctly. They tend to make assumptions that are, at best, questionable and then derive nonsense from those assumptions.
Engaging in rational thought to answer transcendentant questions is of no value to you?
I am not sure I have a good definition of the word 'transcendent' in this context.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11305
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do the laws of logic come from?
Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).
Thats what I thought...
We invented them to help us understand the universe. They have shown themselves helpful in this endeavor.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11306
Jan 24, 2013
 
David Cameron, PM UK: Islam is a great religion. And a peaceful one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11307
Jan 24, 2013
 
Muslim Patrol - Enforcing Sharia Law on the Streets of London
Muslims confronting members of the public and demanding they give up alcohol and women cover their flesh
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11308
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you argue using logic?
You have just denied the first law of logic.
The law of non-contradiction...
More precisely, I have said that it is very often misused.

Let's precisely state the law as it is most often used: An object cannot have a property P and also have the negation of that same property,~P.

In order to use this law, the property P must be precisely defined: no fuzziness is allowed. So, phrases like 'a lot' are to be avoided since they are ambiguous. Second, the *exact* negation of the property P needs to be in the latter phrase. many times people misuse this law by not having that precise negation. For example, the property P might be 'is in the location given by x at the time t'. The negation is then 'not being in the location x at the time t'. This is different than 'being in a different location x' or at a different time t''

Finally, the same property P needs to be used throughout. In my poodle example, the property of 'being a dog' changed in the sentence (as well as being ambiguous).

So, make an argument from the law of non-contradiction that proves your deity exists. Let's see if you can do it.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11309
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

When did you last visit the garden of eden?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Love God, garden of Eden.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11310
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You're not just talking on handsfree are you? I always check before branding someone a mental.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do the laws of logic come from?
Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).
Thats what I thought...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11311
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what you stated.
What I *said* is that time, matter, and energy are most likely to be coterminous. In other words, whenever any of them have existed, so have the others. That is specifically a negation to the claim that time was before the other two.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11312
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Nothing on that page exonerates the Bible. Israelite soldiers capture and rape women and it is supported by your god.

How do you explain this?
mtimber wrote:
The real question is, why is any of the above wrong in an atheistic worldview?
Doesn't even matter. I can show that your moral system is self-contradictory without appealing to an alternative system.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11313
Jan 24, 2013
 
True true :))
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Give him a break... he's a practicing religious douche. 250 more posts and he gets upgraded from a plain water douche to a holy water douche. 1500 more and he can add vinegar!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,621 - 10,640 of21,328
|
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
•••
•••