Questions ABOUT non-believers

[Moose]

<<<<< Mental Note: NEVER GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH MOI, File next to don't eat pizza directly out of the microwave>>>>>>

 

Yellowlioness, how's, "AWESOME"......

[YellowLioness]

<<<<< Mental Note: NEVER GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH MOI, File next to don't eat pizza directly out of the microwave>>>>>>

 

Yup! She is quite good with arguments. lol. Also, I enjoy Hokey and Dyer, when it comes to controversial threads.

 

 

Why am I talking about her like she can't see this? lol.

 

Alrighty, "Awesome," is the word of the day. Like PeeWee's Playhouse.

 

Mecka Lecka High Mecka Hiney Ho! (It's Genie!)

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by moimeme

I hate how the anti-theists feel they must ridicule people who believe. That you feel we are stupid and you superior is obnoxious, frankly.

 

I always find it terribly amusing that anti-theists can barely stop their heads from cracking in half,so wide are their smug grins. Awash in orgies of self-congratulation on the spectacular scholarship that has led them to their conclusions, they must ache from collective back-patting.

 

I trust you are not speaking of me. I have tried to understand the POV of a christian, even though I most certainly do not believe in any divinity. This is a very rude and emotional statement from you, Moimeme and frankly I'm surprised that you took the posts so personally and spoke in such generalities!

 

 

 

Oh, and people Can Not fly. They can fly airplanes and kites and gliders, though.

[ladyangel]

Originally posted by YellowLioness

Yup! She is quite good with arguments. lol.

You've got that right. She's the master of arguing. Too bad she's not always right.

 

Oh, and Hokey...*nothing* surprises me anymore.

 

Just to weigh in on the topic at hand, I totally believe there is a higher power, but I guess I'd fall into the agnostic category when it comes to knowing just what that higher power is.

[Mr Spock]

Does anyone remember that simpsons episode where Homer asks Ned if Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot even Jesus couldn't eat it?

 

Faith should always be a personal, private matter IMHO. If celebrating a holiday keeps a family close, who cares about the religious connotations of it?

 

I'm somewhat agnostic, and I don't feel superior to anyone who follows a faith. Just don't come knocking on my door hoping to make me see the light.

[sinner]

I'm an unapologetic WASP Atheist.

 

For me, God died at Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Babi Yar...

 

There is no divine Superdad or Supermom looking out for us.

 

God's only, and I do mean only, excuse is that he/she doesn't exist.

 

We're all playing this game on this dust ball planet on our own.

 

There will be no rescue and there ain't no one watching or keeping score.

 

[moimeme]

Yellow Lioness clarifies:

 

YellowLioness...not Fayebelle. We're the best of buddies, but we're not the same person.

 

Very sorry! Got my avatars muxed ip

 

Moose makes a mental note

<<<<< Mental Note: NEVER GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH MOI, File next to don't eat pizza directly out of the microwave>>>>>>

 

So, you're saying I'm hot?

 

YL wonders:

 

Why am I talking about her like she can't see this? lol.

 

 

Hoke replies:

 

I trust you are not speaking of me. I have tried to understand the POV of a christian, even though I most certainly do not believe in any divinity. This is a very rude and emotional statement from you, Moimeme and frankly I'm surprised that you took the posts so personally and spoke in such generalities

 

Actually, Hoke, I was referring to the general. However this was written as a reply to a noted anti-theist/philosopher who writes very well and is extremely interesting but fails on the very point I mentioned - since none of us knows all that is knowable, nobody has the definitive answer. But oh, how some anti-theists are SO smug about how smart they are because they aren't believers and the fellow in question is especially so.

 

The difference, unfortunately, is that the adherents of logical positivism seem to think it necessary to ridicule people who can exist without thinking that logical positivism is the only valid cognitive position. I didn't say you did that and I wasn't thinking of you.

 

So your impression that I aimed this at any poster, and you in particular, is completely wrong. I chopped out the bits of the letter I wrote that was relevant to his study and papers and plopped the rest in my reply. It is my general position on this question. I haven't sent it off to the original intended recipient yet but I will.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by moimeme

Um. I used love as an analogy. The point is not to continue with the analogy but to understand that anything which is only a concept (Love, God) cannot be proven. It doesn't mater whether Love is ephemeral or not - its existence in a nanosecond, if you will, is the same as its eternal existence. I am not arguing the properties of love, I am arguing that because it is only a concept and not something concrete, its existence is not provable.

 

So if you're admitting YOURSELF that the exisitence of god isn't provable, why are you getting your knickers in a knot when athiests point that fact out?

 

Originally posted by moimeme

I'm not a go-to-church-every-weeker or anything, but I definitely *know* God is there.

 

Ahem...shall I point out the contradiction between this statement and your previously quoted paragraph? Knowledge is acquired and not intrinsic - so if you cannot prove god exists, how can you "*know*" he exists. This is faith, moi, NOT knowledge. You are confusing reason with emotion.

 

 

Originally posted by moimeme

I don't know how I can explain this so you understand.

 

Excuse me, but who is the arrogant one now?

 

Originally posted by moimeme

That God knows what you will do doesn't change your ability to do it. Somehow you seem to equate 'free will' with the ability to surprise God. The fact is that you can do whatever you are going to do, like the ants in Hoke's ant farm. That God Hoke knows what that will be only means that God Hoke has infinitely greater knowledge than you. That God knows in advance what you will do doesn't mean you didn't choose to do it freely. I am not sure how it is that you don't see the distinction. His knowing is completely separate from your doing. That he's not surprised means nothing at all to the outcome.

 

Opinion, and only valid in the context of YOUR mind, therefore useless as an argument, from start to finish. You don't have a SINGLE thread of proof the back up the basic premise of you argument. Your logic only applies within the framework of the premise. Thank you.

 

No. Doing whatever you want doesn't mean you can surprise God! The two situations are unrelated.

 

See above.

 

I hate how the anti-theists feel they must ridicule people who believe. That you feel we are stupid and you superior is obnoxious, frankly.

 

Wow...dicto simpliciter! We don't think you're stupid. We think you're indoctrinated (same as athiests). There's a huge difference. People are products of their environment. Simple as that. Like I said before, it's not a question of intelligence, but of perspective.

 

I always find it terribly amusing that anti-theists can barely stop their heads from cracking in half,so wide are their smug grins. Awash in orgies of self-congratulation on the spectacular scholarship that has led them to their conclusions, they must ache from collective back-patting.

 

Oh, that's just super. In your exact previous sentence you berate someone ELSE for being obnoxious... . The only smug grin athiests have is when the believers lose their composure and start playing the man instead of the ball. You may stop beating the straw man now, mmkay?

 

[color=blue]However, the fact remains, and it is the most delightful of ironies, that the very people who feel that they are indeed the most brilliant of all humans are somehow possessed of the utter conviction that, by dint of their existence in the here and now, and because they are able to apprehend some elements of science and some morsels of logic, they are also possessed of such extreme genius that they can confidently predict, in the here and now, that they already understand all that has ever been and SHALL EVER BE KNOWN and therefore can state quite categorically that there is no Divine. [/color]

 

The very nature of science is that it is mutable. It's a basic tenet. Anyone who claims something for certain, is being dogmatic. Whether you believe or not. Your sweeping generalization is simple self-indulgence.

 

Never mind that every successive generation has thought itself the apex of knowledge and had a lock on the true nature of possibility. Only to be proved wrong again and again. Never mind that the earth actually does circumnavigate the sun, that people can fly, and that people absolutely need more than 64k of memory-

 

Haha - what a load of nonsense. You don't realise the position you've painted yourself into. (Earth = center of universe) = religious doctrine. People cannot fly (if we were meant to fly, god would have given us wings) = religious standpoint. Your incorrect 64K argument (it's 640K) notwithstanding, can you detect a certain pattern here? Yes, that's right - most fallacies that have been perpetrated on humanity through the ages have been relics of religious doctrine, and it has been science that set the record straight. The fact that science has made mistakes is irrelevant to your argument - name one single instance where religion has proved science wrong...ermmm?

 

still every succeeding generation of 'atheists' completely fails to comprehend that [color=blue]their membership as an atheist can only be assured if they in fact do possess the sum of all knowledge unto centuries hence[/color]. And that is simply not possible.

 

Explain to me why a total knowledge of the universe is required to reject the existence of god? Ah...wait...now I get it - YOU are allowed to have faith in your beliefs, not with a lot of of evidence, not with some evidence, oreven with a little evidence, but with ZERO evidence! Yet athiests's viewpoints are false because they don't have ALL the evidence!? Your logic falls apart terribly. Non causa pro causa...your assertation that the athiestic viewpoint is false because of a lack of evidence, is patently incorrect and self-serving. In any event, you're assertation that it is "impossible" to know everything smacks of the same dogmatism you are trying to rebuke, and is a contradiction to your point - one day it might just BE possible...

 

I guess it's the only attack left to you, seeing as you cannot provide any proof of your own, and cannot refute any of the athiest's arguments.

 

Note to self: Do not try and make my arguments seem more reasonable through use of colour.

 

That human imagination is unable to conceive of flying does not mean it is not possible to fly, after all. Just because the limited human imagining is incapable of comprehending God doesn't mean He doesn't exist and that humans in generations long in the future won't completely understand just as we send people to the moon - a feat that no person in Christ's time would have believed possible.

 

Irrelevant conclusion. I can conceive of fairies and body snatching aliens - does not mean they exist. Your spiel fails to demonstrate how your position is in any way correct. Plus, it creates another logical inconsistency.... I'm sure you can imagine that god does in fact NOT exist, can't you? So how do you choose between your imaginings? Yes, that's right...dogma and indoctrination

 

 

Congratulations on your orgies of self-congratulation over the logic and brilliance you believe you have. I'm sure they are very satisfying. I'd recommend acupuncture for the shoulder strains, but, doubtless, your comprehension of all that exists prevents you from believing that it works.

 

The poor straw man. (Would that be a needle in a haystack, hmm? )

[moimeme]

why are you getting your knickers in a knot when athiests point that fact out?

 

It is this that gets 'my knickers in a knot':

seeing such blatant stupidity

(with other arguments that prove how crazy religious arguments are).

 

so if you cannot prove god exists, how can you "*know*" he exists. This is faith, moi, NOT knowledge. You are confusing reason with emotion.

 

I'm not a logial empiricist. It's your faith, not mine.

Your logic only applies within the framework of the premise. Thank you.

 

See above.

 

ow...dicto simpliciter! We don't think you're stupid.

 

Funny, that. I could've sworn statements like:

 

seeing such blatant stupidity

 

indicate that we are indeed thought stupid. Unless somebody changed the meaning of 'stupidity' and didn't tell me. Denying something that is right there in print on this very thread is pointless, isn't it?

 

start playing the man instead of the ball.

 

Unlike the anti-theists who use words like 'stupid' and 'crazy'?

 

most fallacies that have been perpetrated on humanity through the ages have been relics of religious doctrine

Oh really? Well since you're so intent on proof of everything, please list here all fallacies that have ever existed through the ages and prove that they were 'relics of religious doctrine'. I need numbers, percentages, and every fallacy ever known listed right here. And be quick about it

 

The fact that science has made mistakes is irrelevant to your argument -

 

My argument is that mortals do not know or understand everything although sometimes they think they do - and then find themselves wrong. That science has made mistakes proves that perfectly.

 

name one single instance where religion has proved science wrong...ermmm?

 

As with your 'you have to be able to surprise God' argument, repeating the same thing incessantly doesn't make your point. Again. I am NOT a logical empiricist. This is not about which proves what best. My point, because apparently I have to repeat it in hope it's grasped, is that we don't know everything yet.

 

Explain to me why a total knowledge of the universe is required to reject the existence of god?

 

I shouldn't have to. If you have not toured the room, you cannot say with certainty there is no man behind the door.

 

Ah...wait...now I get it - YOU are allowed to have faith in your beliefs, not with a lot of of evidence, not with some evidence, oreven with a little evidence, but with ZERO evidence!

 

I'm not the one who needs evidence. You do. If that's the case, you must have all the evidence to make a logical conclusion.

 

In any event, you're assertation that it is "impossible" to know everything smacks of the same dogmatism you are trying to rebuke, and is a contradiction to your point - one day it might just BE possible...

 

Clearly, I meant it's impossible to know everything now, since it's my contention that we may someday.

 

Irrelevant conclusion. I can conceive of fairies and body snatching aliens - does not mean they exist.

 

How do you know they don't? Have you been to every planet in every galaxy? Thought not.

 

Plus, it creates another logical inconsistency.... I'm sure you can imagine that god does in fact NOT exist, can't you?

 

I can imagine you don't exist. But you do. But I think I shall, anyway.

[Papillon]

I can imagine you don't exist. But you do. But I think I shall, anyway.

 

Not once did I call you stupid or crazy. More than once did I point out how your viewpoints are inconsistent or illogical. Seeing as you don't care about logic, why are you persisting with your personal attacks? You obviously find SOMETHING offensive. Your attitude is as digusting as the one who would call you stupid or crazy.

[moimeme]

Some discussions become pointless. That was my only point; that was not an attack. If I were to attack you, your monitor would melt from the heat. But I've no reason to.

[Papillon]

No - if the discussion was pointless you'd leave it. You simply seem content to insult others in a flood of patronising invective. You give yourself too much credit. Lucky I have too much self-respect to feel insulted, and I have your measure, to boot. It's a pity others here confuse your style with good debating skill....it's anything but.

[HokeyReligions]

Okay, well that phrasing clicked something in my mind--- "ability to surprise God" I think I can see more of what the Christians mean when they talk about free-will. The problem, I think, is in how we define free-will in a logical, human-only way of thinking (leaving God out of it) and then defining it with God in the equation.

 

Just because someone knows which path a person will take, does not take away the choice. There are two paths in the forest - I took the left one, but I had the freedom to choose the one on the right. But I chose the left. Just because God knew I would choose the path on the left does not negate the actual choice. Just because someone knows the future does not mean they control or influence the events leading up to that point. They just know what they are. If I had the ability to see into the future, I might know what the lottery numbers will be, but I can't change them or influence which way the balls will bounce.

 

Is that more accurate?

 

Are we confusing the act of making a choice, with free-will? Perhaps God's definition of free-will is not mankinds definition.

 

To go back to the knowing if the daughter will drink example. I can suspect and predict that if my daughter goes to a specific party, she will drink. I can feel pretty certain of it because I know who else will be at the party and what kind of party it is. I am going to trust her to not drink, but I have accepted that she may. That is all I can do. God, however, doesn't have to guess -- he KNOWS. He has seen it. He doesn't step in and stop it though, because that would be taking away the free-will He gave--the ability to make the choice. By giving that ability he allowed humans to grow and progress and create on their own.

 

If he had led humans and not given a choice, we would be living dumb and happy and not doing for ourselves because we would rely only on God. Without the ability to make a choice, we remain like robots following a set program. The free-will that was given us, was like the "AI" chip that we see in movies. Robots think for themselves and create their own world because they have an artificial intelligence chip. In effect, they are given free-will--the ability to make a choice and not just follow a program.

 

 

Oh, and I understand about people of faith (POF) not wanting anti-theists to shove their anti-belief down their throats. I imagine POF's get just as sick of that as I do of some faiths trying to save me and leaving tracts on my doorstep!

 

 

Not all religious people are that pushy, neither are all anti-theists.

 

Okay, I'm rambling as I think about this. I'll stop now.

[BlockHead]

Papillon

Free will is a total and utter myth. We are biological blobs of matter responding to physical inputs from the outside world. Just like a ball bounces when you throw it against the wall, so we bounce around according to the forces applied to us.

On the condition this is a non-causal universe.

 

Imagine that the universe is a giant causal chessboard. Imagine that a computer was used to compute every possible move, and non-move. As a player, do you have free will? Under what conditions would you have free will?

Papillon

Your incorrect 64K argument (it's 640K) notwithstanding, can you detect a certain pattern here?

I think moimeme was correct. Early IBM based PCs used a maximum memory space of 640k (Some IBM executives thought 10x the size was good for marketing). I believe the really old Apple computers used a memory space of 64k.

[moimeme]

Is that more accurate?

 

Yep, Hoke, you got it right on the nose!

 

I think moimeme was correct

 

Thanks, BH. The first machines did have 64K ("Commodore 64") but I was referring to Gates' famous statement - (640 K should be enough for anybody) which did include the '0'.

 

Papillon, I told you where my post came from. It is not an insult. However, if you choose to infer an insult, that is your prerogative.

 

From one of the 'stupid' ones.

[amerikajin]

Yes, moimeme is correct: it was 64k. I used to own a Commodore 64, then a 128.

[amerikajin]

To debate whether we have free will or not is nonsense. Humans - have - free - will.

 

Some choices are easier or more appealing to make than others. Such as the choice to flee from danger or the choice to eat rather than starve.

 

Yet, there are a select few people who choose to do neither in hopes of ending their own lives.

 

That's free will.

[amerikajin]

To me, the only possible explanation of God is that God is not merciful (or at least not in the interventionist sense). Nor is God perfect, nor is he/she/it always right.

 

God is simply there. God is simply a creative force, much more powerful and complex than our limited capabilities can understand or relate to. That is why I believe that while spiritual exchange can be positive between people, the ultimate spiritual journey takes place on an individual basis.

 

I resent dogma. I resent people who believe they have the power to speak on behalf of God. People who try to speak on behalf of God are, in effect, claiming to have semi-divine powers themselves, which is an affront to us and a laughable insult to divine power. No priest can make rain. No reverend can save the terminally ill. No minister or deacon can repair the damage done to our environment through years of neglect. Only God can do that.

 

My thought is, God wouldn't consciously intervene to remedy any of the aforementioned situations. God created heaven and earth the same way a scientist builds creation. I think we're all part of some experiment, and that God just created our existence to see what would happen. I think God tried to program certain things as much as possible, but it's a process that was spun into motion and left long, long ago.

 

Merciful God?

 

Why would a merciful God allow Hiroshima? Why would a merciful God allow Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Why would a merciful God allow the Tutsis and Hutus to destroy each other? Ante-bellum Slavery? Slaughter of indigenous peoples? September 11th? Saddam Hussein? Imperialism?

 

Is it population control?

[dyermaker]

While others' scholarship may be lacking, your scholarship is absurd. If you've even been to college, that's wonderful. But once you get master's degrees from Cornell and Carnegie Mellon, then talk to me about scholarship. Until then, I'd suggest you know what you're talking about before penning uneducated, sophomoric, religious nonsense.

Kat, to say that religious people can't be scholars, and to say that logic and religion are enemies, that's pure ignorance.

 

Some of the greatest scholars in the history of mankind--Thomas Acquinas for example--have reconciled logic with religion.

 

Plenty of religious people's faith manifests itself through scholarship. Plenty of academic institutions are in high esteem despite offering reliigious eeducations.

 

I can't prove God exists, nor do I intend to. On the other hand, you can't prove love exists, but I don't see you arguing against that.

 

I've felt God, and I've felt love. I believe in both.

 

So far, for such a scholar, you've presented no convincing arguments. I'll try to answer your question, even though you weren't seeking an answer.

 

God doesn't operate on the same timeframe as you or I, he doesn't operate on time frames at all. There's no way to prove him wrong, because he's already seen the life you've lived. God works through the people who let him. You're granted free will, and God can't change the results of your actions--but he does know what you're going to choose before you do. That's just a function of him being GOD. You can't humanize him.

 

Whether or not you buy that is irrelevant, but to pretend you're some sort of scholar for presenting this paradox is laughable.

[moimeme]

and that God just created our existence to see what would happen. I think God tried to program certain things as much as possible, but it's a process that was spun into motion and left long, long ago.

 

Why would a merciful God allow Hiroshima? Why would a merciful God allow Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Why would a merciful God allow the Tutsis and Hutus to destroy each other? Ante-bellum Slavery? Slaughter of indigenous peoples? September 11th? Saddam Hussein? Imperialism?

 

Do you not see the contradiction in this? On the one hand, people get all bent out of shape because they may not have 'free will'. However, when they exercise that free will and cause havoc, God gets blamed for letting it happen

 

You can't have it both ways! If you demand to be left alone to do as you please, then you take the consequences and don't blame God when you screw up. Either you want God to be playing us like chess pieces or you don't - you can't change your mind and say 'God, lay off and let me do what I want - but control everybody else so they behave' LOL!!!!!

[moimeme]

uneducated, sophomoric, religious nonsense.

 

Nobody must have posted that because, apparently, anti-theists don't insult theists. !

[Papillon]

(Off topic)

 

Earlier hardware notwithstanding, 64K is incorrect - Bill Gates made the 640K statement when he made the decision to segment the DOS memory addressing scheme on 8-bit IBM machines. Google for it - it's an interesting tale, at the very least.

 

(On topic)

 

Moimeme said somethnig earlier about the athiestic viewpoint that struck me - she said that you cannot say whether a guy is behind the door without touring the room.

 

Let's run with this analogy:

 

1) Athiests assume the guy is NOT behind the door, for not having toured the room. There is no evidence to suggest that there should be. Why think of a guy behind the door in the first place?

 

2) Believers firmly believe the guy is behind the door, without having toured the room. The guy behind the door was "conjured up", if you will.

 

Now tell me which is the more "reasonable" viewpoint? Why should athiests be ashamed of being reasonable?

 

But I believe the point moimeme tries to make is that we empahtically state there is NO guy behind the door. A dogmatic athiest would make that claim, but I don't. I merely chop everything I know into little pieces, chew it finely, and spit out the bones. For me, the guy behind the door is a bone - it's irrelevant fluff, an artificially thought-up detail.

[dyermaker]

2) Believers firmly believe the guy is behind the door, without having toured the room. The guy behind the door was "conjured up", if you will.

I have most certainly 'toured the room', so to speak.

 

Why would I believe in something I have no evidence of?

[Papillon]

Originally posted by moimeme

uneducated, sophomoric, religious nonsense.

 

Nobody must have posted that because, apparently, anti-theists don't insult theists. !

 

I wish you would stop gnawing at this bone, moimeme. Just because someone had the bad grace to make a statement like that, does not mean that all athiests are like this. Stop being petulant, dammit!

[Papillon]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I have most certainly 'toured the room', so to speak.

 

Why would I believe in something I have no evidence of?

 

The point was that "touring the room" implies knowing everything there is to know about the universe. No one has done that.