The Atheist Thread

Octafish wrote: <h3>John 15:6 (New King James Version)</h3> <span id="en-NKJV-26700" ="sup">6</span> If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. I'm not quite certain if this is refering to Hell or literally burning blasphemers, but in either case it doesn't seem too happy go lucky to me. And the "free will" argument doesn't really work for me, as it doesn't answer my question, unless you're implying that God cannot predict our actions because we have free will, which would seem to contradict the whole "omniscient and omnipotent" deal.

Well that was not a good example. That's clearly hell... you just interpret the bible literally and thus you conclude that people should be burned in a stake for not abiding to hi

And he chose to give free will to people, the fact that he can see through our hearts doesn't mean he controls us.. he gave us control over ourselfs and this realm, and we are responsible for our actions here; he gave himself the task to evaluate us
     

sorry to jump into this so late, but i've thought a lot about a lot of things on the subject of god. i want to reply to some of these.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: First off, here's a place to post about atheism, what are some good atheist books, why all atheists are going to hell, what a totalitarian dictator that God guy really is. Anything having to do with atheism. Just keep it civil (more civil than what I've said already). Let's see if we can keep it all in good fun and good taste, and get the fundamentalist christians and the fundamentalist atheists laughing together at the same jokes. Have fun. My following argument rests on two assumptions 1) God is something higher than humans, supernatural, all-seeing and all powerful being that for all intents and purposes, is alive (all else I would say is not defined by the term God) 2) Human beings have free will Here is my argument against God. Assuming that humans have free will, which I assume you all agree with me that we do, there can be no God. God is supernatural, can see the past, knows the future, and can do anything. If God knows everything that happens in the future, then no matter what you say or think, every action of yours is predetermined. The same goes for God. He (sorry feminists) may be able to do anything, but he has no choice whether he does it or not. He knows it will happen, and there's nothing he can do to stop that.

omnipotent doesnt entail knowledge of all time. i can agree that an ageless God would know all past; however, i dont believe that time exists. by saying that God can see the future you have already assumed that the future is a structured set of events. thus human beings in your view of time have no free will which violates your second premise. time is not an entity. nothing exists except right now. God cannot know the future because the future does not exist. it would be a logical impossibility to have knowledge of something that "is not".

inpraiseoffolly wrote: What this means is that God has limits, which means that God is not supernatural. Thus, the whole concept of a supernatural God is an oxymoron. The way I see it, there are three ways to categorize beings. Those with free will and no limits (supernatural - as we've shown, cannot exist) are "higher" than those with free will but with limits (like animals, which age and die, and such things, but have free will), which are in turn higher than those without free will (like trees and mushrooms, which do not choose how they grow, but simply do so as genetically coded responses to different external stimulae). Now, if there is a "higher" God, this God must have free will but have limits, and humans must lack free will. Now, there is an argument to be made that all human actions are a result of genetically coded responses to external stimulae, and that, therefore, two identical humans with the same genetic code, placed in two identical worlds designed to give them exactly the same response for any action, will live exactly the same life. However, this is virtually untestable, so we will never know. Also, let me put it this way. If humans and other animals lack free will, than any higher being does not fall under the laws of nature as we know them, and so is just as unlikely as an all-powerful God.

I've shown that God is not limited by your claim of time if indeed time is natured as I say it is. The only limitation on God that I can see is that God cannot do something that cannot be done. Is this a limitation on God? I dont think so, but you may see it as one if you wish. Either way, God still has free will to do whatever he can do. If God is all-powerful (meaning he can do anything that is able to be done) and has free will, then you might ask how humans can also have free will. In other words, how can humans impose their will if it is contrary to God's will? The answer would have to be that God's ultimate will is to give humans a choice of their own.


As for myself, you'll never actually figure out what I believe, but I can tell you that I never believe the whole of what anybody claims to be true. I am a Christian, Athiest, Buddhist and Agnostic, yet I am none of them.





Edited by SolariS - January 11 2007 at 23:09

 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I wonder, why so much effort of some atheists trying to descredit a God they say doesn't exist?   Isn't this too much effort for a fanstasy from their perspective?

Ivàn, you and I have been through this before.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Octafish wrote: If God is omniscient, wouldn't he know that a primitive society would skew his message in ways he didn't intend? If he knew that, couldn't he have simply waited a few millenia to spread his message? Besides, you talk as though all the violence is in the Old Testament, there's plenty of hate in the New Testament as well, be it regarding homosexuals, unbelievers, etc. And Jesus himself says not to disregard the prophets and the Old Testament... obviously he had some faith in the truth of their message.   Free will!!!!   Iván

Ever since I came to realize that God exists, I am equally divided between the notions of free will and determinism. On the one hand, such important events as birth, death, sickness, etc. beg for a logical conclusion that they’re pre-determined as they’re definitely are not self-imposed. On the other hand, man seems to have too much autonomy to decide what to do with his life. Compatibilism, which tries to reconcile the two notions suggesting they can co-exist, often termed as dualism by different philosophies for the need to explain the existence of two opposite principles in one entity, does not address the issue but rather establishes a convenient vehicle to promote either argument, whichever one is more suitable, and it is pure rhetoric.

So if you plough through your own statements, you will certainly find a lot of determinism in what you say. Yet when it’s suits you, the free will is invoked.

    

Sean Trane wrote:   Thus ending in warfares (religions wars are among the most commons in human history).

    
Sean,

I can’t agree with you on that. Most wars have been driven by economic reasons. I can challenge you to an exercise of you naming any such event in the world history and me showing its roots deeply buried in the economy (with regard to Asian history, it may require some research as I’m not that proficient in it). I would dare to say that about 95% of all wars have been fought for economic reasons, and the remaining 5% represent all other, including religious and “vanity” wars, like the Falkland Islands war on the part of England.

Religion is used more as a tool for the purpose of war. Religion history clearly shows that as soon as a religion had been institutionalized, i.e. gathered a statistically significant following to exert political pressure, every religion became expansionist and imperialist. A call for a religious war exploits religious fanaticism, but the goal of the war is usually dictated by the economy as the war is to achieve economic gains.

Sorry, your atheist pacifist efforts are futile.

IVN

    
    

Edited by IVNORD - January 12 2007 at 10:18

if you know the old invasion slogan : Gold, Glory, Gospell, i think that's why most of war always have both economical and religious factors

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:   Goldenavatar wrote: It seems like a lot of people are talking without a clear understanding of some basic theology. I do not claim to be an expert but a lot of the misunderstanding definitely stems from not understanding the concept of Original Sin. Do you think that the way things are now is the way God created them? They are not. Of course if you refuse to accept the reality of Original Sin, good luck understanding the human condition.       We would be very much obliged if you enlighten us on the subject, especially the reality of it.     Then again maybe not.   I mean: do we really need to read such non-sense???   If god had the apple tree at human reach, there is absolutely no reasons why they could not feed from it??? But this notion is essential to feed us (I mean the "god-fearing" masses, not moi!!! ) with the famous Judeo-christian guilt feeling, putting us in the inferiority state of perpetual sinners always on the look out of the redeeming salute.   Talk about bloody crap.   anyway, it's all Eve's fault, right???

Goldenavatar wrote:  A response like this demonstrates very well what I meant by people not understanding Original Sin. I can't even say this demonstrates a shallow understanding, because it really is no understanding at all. I already said that I'm not an expert, but I also already suggested people read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica if they're interested. But many of the responses in this thread indicate to me that many people would prefer to continue their blissful ignorance.

    Would you bother to tell us in concise terms what message Summa Theologica conveys since you seem to have been familiar with it? Your statement about our blissful ignorance, however touching, sounds more like arrogance of a tired genius and is inconsistent with the cooperative and friendly spirit of this thread
    

Edited by IVNORD - January 12 2007 at 13:26

Sean Trane wrote: Ivàn, you and I have been through this before.   first: Religion does not equal the possibility of a god or a creator.   but: without a god, there is no religion.   Obvious enough....but????     If atheists try to convince religous god-believers that it doesn't exist, it is because atheists generally feel that religious beliefs are rather dangerous and source of troubles and exclusions.   Every activity has a risk, living is a risk, if you live you have the risk (Well you must be sure) of dying, this doesn't means we must abolish life.   And there is something more important, why must 70% or 80% of the humanity (Probably more) that believe in a God and/or religion must adapt our believes to a small minority that feels Religion is dangerous.   EDIT: JUST CHECKED AND THE NUMBER OF ATHEISTS IN THE WORLD IS OF 240'000,000 (ONLY 4% of the humanity), If you add Agnostic and non religious, who don't deny the existence of God, the pecentage increases to slightly bellow 20%.   So it's a bit arrogant to see  4% of the people asking to ban what 80% accept and believe and 16% claim to don't know or care.   Isn't this exactly the same methods that fanatics use to attack every other religion?   A very small minority claiming to know what's better for the humanity than 96%  of the world?    Through religions, communities are created and as such they are inclusive (so far so good), but if you do not agree with the communtity (or as very often dispute the religious leader's credential), you are excluded (or excommunicated, which means rejected >> "not one of us" crap >>> and that starts to stink), and the other communities become dangers. Thus ending in warfares (religions wars are among the most commons in human history).   There are radicals in every discipline, if the comitee of ethics of the Medical doctors decide that the method of a proffesional is risky or simply goes against the interests of the big laboratories that support hospitals (If they don't buy their products at 100 times the real value) they disbar the doctor.   This medics start an alternative career using natural or esoteric methods creating an  extremely dangerous community, but I haven't heard anybody asking to close the Medical Associations or the Laboratories despite their criminal practices like selling the AIDS cocktail in US$ 18,000 a year (20 pills a day) when the one from the India (One pill a day) costs US$ 400.00 a year.   Hey Sports are dangerous, in some parts of Latin America, England, Scotland, etc the Hooligans have caused thousands of deaths for a stupid sport...Why don't we ban sports also, they are dangerous.   In 1998 when the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl, there were riots and if I'm not wrong deaths, why don't Atheists fight to ban USA Football, no Atheists are probably making a barbecue and watching the Super Bowl as most Americans.   Politic is dangerous, civil wars are sarted frequently because the guy who lost the elections doesn't accept the results, lets ban politics also!!!!!    As such , atheists feel that religions are obscurantist, and definitely not preaching the message of peace it is supposed to bring.   That's what Atheists feel, but accept it Sean, Atheists are a very small minority in the world, what they feel is irrelevant and would be also irrelevant if they were a majority because our rights to believe in what we want are protected in most civilized countries.   Thus is a weird way for religious people, atheists see religion as the root of a lot of evil.   Many religious groups see Atheists as root of evil, the lack of moral values in the young people is creating more violence than ever (Not saying Atheists lack of ,moral, but that's the perception a good number of persons have and is as flawed as saying Religion is negative), Religion is banned in schools, but still once in a while some kid gets a Winchester and shoot other students because they are more popular than him or because he believes they are too stupid to live.   The root of evil is humanity itself, we're an evil specie.    That might seems preposterous to religious people, but there is way too much proofs proving the atheists right that religious fanatics' intolerances are simply dangerous. And the fact that religious moderates are simply bloody scared of the fanatics, they should act against those fanatics from being a nuisance and  actually discrediting their "faith".   Religious groups try to close those fanatic branches, they ban them or even excomunicate them but...THE ATHEIST CILVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS ARE THE ONES THAT JUMP TO MAKE A SCANDAL WHEN A GROUP OF FANATICS ARE PROSECUTED, SAYING THE GOVERNMENT IS ATTEMPTING AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.   Last week we saw members of this site saying that the Davidians in Waco were just good USA citizens in the excercize of their civil rights to have weapons...So not the Religious leaders, not the Pope, but the CIVIL LAW IS THE ONE THAT PROTECTS THIS FANATICS.   To atheists religous moderates are as much to blame as the fanatics, because they do not act towards the fanatics. Their laxism towards the fanatics is proving to as criminal as the fanatic's actions.   If it was for the organized religious groups, the fanatic sects would be erradicated but THE CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE ONES WHO PROTECT THE FANATICS AND THIS ASSOCIATIONS ARE MAINLY ATHEIST.   We can't go against the law that is absolutely manipulated by ACLU and similars to protect this fanatics. If a church asks the law to declare fanatics outlaw, they will probably be sued and loose.   Most atheists would like to see religions abolished because mankind is now intelligent enough to know that even if a god/creator existed, it would not need worshipping and massacring to its name. So if we atheists try to convince gullible religous people that blind faith or normal faith is not only dangerous, but makes you a puppet in the hands of the clerical authorities, it is for the good of the future of mankind that we try to stop them from "believing".   That's your perspective...WHY MUST HUMANITY ACCEPT IT? Aren't you acting as fanatic groups who want to abolish every religion that they don't believe in?   Aren't you saying: We Don't believe in God.  We believe Religion is dangerous It doesn't matter if we are a minority, Lets disappear every other belief or disbelief different to ours. Aren't you implying that you feel superior to obscurantists religious people who believe in something you don't? Please Sean, massacres are in this days acts of fanatics.   CIVIL SOCIETY SHOULD VANISH THIS FANATICS, NOT RELIGIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER, THE WEAPONS OR THE LAW IN OUR SIDE, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HAS IT,   But the problem is that those fanatics vote and politicians want their votes, so they are the ones who protect them.   Unfortunately even at the XXIst century, this is a battle of everyday that is rather hard to fight.   Today there's a battle against everything, violence in schools, violence in streets, violence in sports, violence in politics, violence everywhere.   Isn't it clear that mankind will find any excuse to be violent if there was not Religion?   If it was for the organized religious groups, the fanatic sects would be erradicated byt THE CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE ONES WHO PROTECT THE FANATICS AND THOIS ASSOCOIATIONS ARE MAINLY ATHEISTS.   We can't go against the law that is absolutely manipulated by ACLU and similars to protect this fanatics.     It would be so nice if we could put all the religious fanatics in an arena, lock them in, throw them weapons so then can eliminate themselves. Trouble is that religious fanatics are searching power and are all too often in power and are happy to see how they can handle crowds, and are ready to destroy their opponents with armies.   I'm quoting your last parragraph in red and replacing a few words in blue   It would be so nice if we could put all the Political leaders in an arena, lock them in, throw them weapons so then can eliminate themselves. Trouble is that Political leadersare searching power and are all too often in power and are happy to see how they can handle crowds, and are ready to destroy their opponents with armies.     It would be so nice if we could put all the Racial leaders in an arena, lock them in, throw them weapons so then can eliminate themselves. Trouble is that Raciial leaders are searching power and are all too often in power and are happy to see how they can handle crowds, and are ready to destroy their opponents with armies.     Your quote would apply to almost everything and we can't ban everything, humanity must learn to deal with this fanatics and the best way is too ignore them, the more propaganda they receive (Positive or negative) the more they will grow    Religions are dangerous because they fight each other constantly on stupid issues: even when they prey the same god, they fight on prophets, altars, prayers etc...   Again the same procedure:     World leaders are dangerous because they fight each other constantly on stupid issues: even when they prey the same goals, they fight on limits, inmigration, political system, etc...    School students are dangerous because they fight each other constantly on stupid issues: even when they prey the same ideals, they fight on sport teams, ethnic groups, ideology, etc...    Prog fans are dangerous because they fight each other constantly on stupid issues: even when they prey the same musical ideals, they fight on bands, sub-genres, influences, etc...  (We have seen a lot of this)     You can see Sean that your argument can also be used to describe everything   Would religions be intelligent enough to set aside their rivalries, atheists would probably not be worried for humankind's future and therefore would not seek to disprove a possible god's existance.   Yoiu can't force us to share the same beliefs or disbeliefs, lately there's a great effort between the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox religions to end the differences between them, this is a start.   But the President (Civil leader) of one country (You know who) went during his campaign to the Bob Jones University (Racist, fanatic, sectary, bigot and discriminatory) who atacks all other churches, just because he rquired their votes.   Then blame the civil leaders not the organized religions, that University is so clearly illegal that I believe their tax benefits were suppresed when Mr. Jones banned the inter racial dating.   It may sound that atheists are trying to convince religions of their wrongdoings by eliminating the creator, but is the best way to stop wars is not to stop building weapons or is the best way to kill a disease not to attack the virus instead of the desease's syptoms???   No Sean, you can't eliminate the creator, Atheists don't have that power,  God exists (Or doesn''t exist as you say) idependently from our acts.   But why should you decide what is better for us? Again Sea, Atheists are a minority why should they decide what is right and what is wrong for the huge majority that doesn't agree with them?   The countries where Religion was banned are precisely the less democratic in the world (USSR, Dempocratic Kampuchea (Democratic..ha ha), Mao's China, etc.   If you ban religions, probably the different Atheist philosophies will start to fight one against the other, Humanists against Rationalists against Naturalistic Pantheists, etc.   If you're a democratic person (I'm sure you are) you should be the first one in the line supporting our right to believe in what we want.   Believe me, if you ban religions something new will appear, race, stature,  weight, politics, sports, anything is a good excuse for violence and you can't ban everything.   Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 12 2007 at 21:33

Chus wrote:        The future doesn't exist every passing fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second becomes the present. The Present doesn't exists because every passing fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second is, indeed, passing, thus becomes the past... if I say at this precise moment NOW!!!!... i've just said it.. it became an event of the past. The Past.. well the past is only remembered, but we can't travel to the past... there's no way (please don't say videotapes).. Time was a measure system created by humans to evaluate how night becomes day, how day becomes night, how fast runners are in a marathon within a given space, etc... Indeed time passes.. but there's no way future exist if only for expectation; the earth revolves around the sun and it doesn't need a clock to do so

    You talk about time in terms of physics. In this sense, yes, time is a measure system created by humans. What if Time is God? Something we can’t define?