Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147506 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The creator "God" has not deemed us worthy of much information outside of our Universe. We can't even handle the information he has given us.
Hedonist:
What if God had created a parallel universe for each choice we make. so every scenario is played out in everyone's life. Maybe in addition to one life lived out and every possibility alternative is played out, maybe we live everyone's life that ever lived in all possible scenario with that life. Then God would have very good data to judge each soul on.
We just don't know what God has kept from us.
Lame excuse for not wanting to do the work of advancing our understanding.
KJV

United States

#147507 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -

So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."

And why is this? Because it's your rules?

FYI there is an all powerful entity.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147508 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". The word does not appear in any popular dictionary, but is a technical term used more in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred.
God's perfection is Goodness working in and through all those that are His.
How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147509 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.
Well, since you cannot provide evidence there is one, then you are delusional to assert it is fact.

However, the paradox is best explained with a single question:

Could an all powerful entity create a rock it could not lift?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147510 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.
Unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, you're simply stating your opinion, not fact.
You're mixing you cosmological arguments, but whatever.

The "first cause" argument when stated more completely is "everything that began to exist was caused to exist."

But the unspoken premise here is "everything but God began to exist".

This is a premise without foundation and creates a "begging the question" fallacy that puts "God" in the premise of the argument which is supposed to prove God. All you are actually saying is "God exist because God exist". A rather lame fallacy argument.

Try again?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147511 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.
Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147512 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov -- "
I robot
That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?

And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147513 Jan 7, 2013
Pair of ducks

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147514 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?
And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.
Have you read the Robot City series? It's written more for young adult readers but I highly recommend anyone read it. He actually plays with some very interesting notions about "purpose" and "meaning of life" in the series. I think it's probably his most existential work.
KJV

United States

#147515 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>No, if he's all powerful and all knowing then he would know ever variation of every decision I would make before I was even created, so he could not help but create me to follow a certain path.

(Why "he" anyway? Circumcised?)
"He could help but create me to follow a certain path! " LOL

No you make your own discussions.
He gave that to all mankind. Freedom to disobey his laws.

"He" because we choose to refer to God in a known image to us. There is no he or she in heaven.
KJV

United States

#147516 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>Come closer and I'll tell you...

...closer...

<whisper> I'm not wearing any panties!
Why you're right those are boxer shorts!

Since: Sep 10

United States

#147517 Jan 7, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your comments. There was a time early in my life when my belief in God was pure faith. Since that time I have gone beyond faith.
I know God is real. The proof is my own personal experiences. Thereís no need to share these experiences. Because nothing I can say will persuade you and others.
Iím 100% sure in Godís existence.. I searched for God as a young man and found that he is not a fairy tale. But indeed God is as real as you or I. And so we are at a impasse. I canít persuade you and you canít persuade me.
You can persuade me.

Produce your god.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#147518 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Scary and confusing? Sounds like a date to me.
If it gets too scary you can just focus your attention elsewhere. You don't have to actually watch the movie you know.
You should read the short story if you haven't. As good as John Cusack is, you just can't get the insanity of King's mind into a movie.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#147519 Jan 7, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I was thinking that after Lesbo does it, Tide and River need to make a guest appearance, that'll be cool, won't it? But I just don't know how we could get those two in, to make it really funny!!
Goodnite, guys!
XOXO!! Right back at ya, Catcher! ;-)
Right. Let's all streak. Wait, let's get the amputee. She'll get caught first.

I'll meet you all at the pub when they let me go :)
KJV

United States

#147520 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>So much wrong is such a short sentence.

First, causality depends on the notion of time and time is part of the universe. So either time is infinite into the past, allowing for an infinite string of causality, or time is finite into the past and causality is meaningless for the 'first' event. Either way, talking about a cause for the universe as a whole is problematic, to say the least.

Second, we know of uncaused events in our own universe, so the assumption that everything needs to be caused is already known to be wrong. What argument do you have that the universe was, in fact, caused?

Third, even if causality is an aspect here, there is no reason there needs to be a *single* cause for the whole universe, as opposed to multiple causes (which tends to be the case for most things in the universe). Why not say the universe was caused by a committee?

Fourth, even if there is a single cause for the universe, the identification of this cause with 'God' is problematic, to say the least. You see, simply having a cause does not imply an intelligence, consciousness, morality, or even ownership.

Fifth, unlike your avoidance of the issue, YOUR claims make the positive existence statement, so are the ones with the burden of proof. WE do not have to show them wrong; YOU have to show them correct.
1) Time is part of space they are connected, therefore they are both part of the universe. God is outside of the little box that holds his creation, our universe. That is why God can be the Alpha and the Omega.

2) I have to really doubt you here.
As in the Theory of chaos. It would be Impossible to prove one event did not in some way start another event.

3) This is easy. See there is this book called the Bible and it tells us that there is only one God.

4) again the Bible explains creation. A single cell is more complex then any and all thing made by man. Hence intelligent's

5) "When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.

By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
KJV

United States

#147521 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence is the same for everyone, what you are probably calling evidence is not the same for everyone therefore it is not evidence. Unless you have evidence you have no presented.
Wrong

The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.

"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.

Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL

Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
KJV

United States

#147522 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I just left out the details since they weren't looking for actual answers, just bumper sticker one liners.
I see.
KJV

United States

#147523 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Lame excuse for not wanting to do the work of advancing our understanding.
No such thing!

Learn all you want in the universe. But do you real believe you can learn what's outside of our universe?

Wikipedia

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.[5][6] Definitions and usage vary[how?] and similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature."

You going to learn stuff outside of existence? Sorry honey but the Bible is the only place you'll learn about that stuff. And you don't believe it.
KJV

United States

#147524 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Well, since you cannot provide evidence there is one, then you are delusional to assert it is fact.

However, the paradox is best explained with a single question:

Could an all powerful entity create a rock it could not lift?
Not that I cannot provide evidence and not that the earth and moons and planets don't show any signs or the fact that these threads are loaded with point after point of evidence. No it's not that I can't provide it it that I won't!
KJV

United States

#147525 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.
I hope this helps you.

"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.

Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 8 min Uncle Sam 2,236
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 35 min Thinking 23,173
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 19 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 19 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 19 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 21 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 22 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web