Bible Topic Thread (merged)

that sentence started his commentary and was the basis of those comments. You said that commentary summed it up better than you can. I assumed that means you somehow buy what he says and believed it representative of his point of view.

No, if you want to believe, on an a priori manner, that it is obvious "God" exists - specifically what you choose to believe about him - then so be it. Most of his writings, if you cared to know, very clearly lay out arguments against this view.

Most of what I have gathered from you is the fall back argument of "you can't prove he doesn't exist". Fine. I think it is short-sighted to have this view and then dismiss the opposing view point with the waive of hand based on a single sentence.

Not that it matters anyway because I am sure you don't care what me or anybody else thinks. That's fine.
 
how did that happen? and why planets? why did evolution start? how did the planet get here? how did the universe get here? there must have been something before the universe? how did that something get here? is this universe simply a tiny dot in another super universe?

I guess all I need is faith in Jesus and I can claim to have the answers to all this?

Nobody knows. But just because nobody knows doesn't mean religion has the best answer. When religion tries to answer such questions it only shows the elasticity religious belief combined with the current hole in knowledge we have gained as a species.

If the simple "God did it" answer suffices for you then so be it.
 
No, if you want to believe, on an a priori manner, that it is obvious "God" exists - specifically what you choose to believe about him - then so be it. Most of his writings, if you cared to know, very clearly lay out arguments against this view.

Most of what I have gathered from you is the fall back argument of "you can't prove he doesn't exist". Fine. I think it is short-sighted to have this view and then dismiss the opposing view point with the waive of hand based on a single sentence.

Not that it matters anyway because I am sure you don't care what me or anybody else thinks. That's fine.
how is this what I believe about God? This was about ridiculous commentary that you said summed up atheism better than you can. I called the commentary garbage. It wasn't at all about what I believe. My personal beliefs weren't a part of the discussion at all. The commentary is still garbage.
 
I guess all I need is faith in Jesus and I can claim to have the answers to all this?

Nobody knows. But just because nobody knows doesn't mean religion has the best answer. When religion tries to answer such questions it only shows the elasticity religious belief combined with the current hole in knowledge we have gained as a species.

If the simple "God did it" answer suffices for you then so be it.
I was simply making the point that "obvious" was dead wrong in assessing what atheists choose to believe.

I didn't say there is an answer or that one is more correct. I'm simply pointing out that both sides can amass a large pile of unanswerable questions. How you choose to answer them is your business. Pretending that someone who disagrees with your answer is shallow, stupid or incapable of grasping the "obvious" is simply shallow or stupid.

The simple supernatural answer suffices for me, but I'd suggest it's not quite as simple as you and your obviously genius brethren paint it to be.

You end up in this discussion a lot around here. Seems to me you have more of an agenda about this than any other poster. Interesting to me that the atheists are the most vocal and vitriolic about the subject.
 
Last edited:
Why does it matter?

Because the conditions were just right for life as we know it to evolve on this planet.

Way too much luck involved for that to be chance IMO.

We just happen to be located in a favorable "arm" of the galaxy.

We just happen to be associated with a star that is just the right type.

We just happen to be located at just the right distance from that star.

The earths axis just happens to be tilted just right so life on earth is favorable

The earth just happens to be one of those planets with liquid water, making life here possible.

The list goes on and on.

Would you agree there is an awful lot going on here that made life possible here? Seems like a lot just to attribute to chance doesn't it?
 
No, if you want to believe, on an a priori manner, that it is obvious "God" exists - specifically what you choose to believe about him - then so be it. Most of his writings, if you cared to know, very clearly lay out arguments against this view.

Most of what I have gathered from you is the fall back argument of "you can't prove he doesn't exist". Fine. I think it is short-sighted to have this view and then dismiss the opposing view point with the waive of hand based on a single sentence.

Not that it matters anyway because I am sure you don't care what me or anybody else thinks. That's fine.

The best part about all this is at least (those of us using the Bible as a source) we are using God's inspired word (we believe) to back up our beliefs, thoughts etc.

You are using people and intellects that might change there views or be proven wrong in 10, 15 or 20 years to back up your arguments.

You are obviously a smarter person than me (no sarcasm) but it's odd to me you are willing to believe what these people (scientists) say to be true, when it could change at any moment, yet you won't believe a God could create the Earth.
 
For the record, there was no "traumatic event" that destroyed my faith. I don't like talking about too much of myself on here, but since this has been brought up a number of times, and is a common misconception about most of us infidels, it is worth addressing. I was not abused, I was not forced to go to Church, and I was not hurt in any overt physical or emotional way. I actually enjoyed the fellowship.

I went to Church every Sunday growing up and in early adulthood. I went to Sunday school. I went to nightly seminary classes. I fervently defended my faith. At one point, I actually seriously considered being a minister. I genuinely miss the fellowship of worship sometimes, but have made the conscious decision that it is not worth the emotional torment of living a lie.

Then I actually read the Bible from cover to cover. Took it for what it was worth. I studied other religions. I have actually read the Qu'ran. And I found the whole idea of personal faith, organized religion, and group think to be a farce and a racket.

Life is much more interesting and fulfilling when approached in an intellectually honest way. Contrary to what you may believe, I still have very fulfilling spiritual experiences. Everytime I look at my son, listen to certain pieces of music, even when Tennessee beats Florida....I get the same feeling I got while in worship. I just choose not to call these experiences "God" and I take them for what they are: Purely human experiences that most choose to call something completely supernatural and unexplainable.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the idea that somebody can actually reject faith without the aid of some "traumatic event".

You sure are defensive for some one who seems to have the "to each his own" mentality. I don't profess to know you personally or what has taken place in your life specifically. I have worked in ministry for several years and know that what I have expressed is generally true.


Curious as to what lie you refered to living and why you do not consider that struggle of faith emotionally traumatic?


No matter what you profess now there will come a day either in this life or the next that you will acknowledge the soveriegnty of Christ.
 
how is this what I believe about God? This was about ridiculous commentary that you said summed up atheism better than you can. I called the commentary garbage. It wasn't at all about what I believe. My personal beliefs weren't a part of the discussion at all. The commentary is still garbage.

Absolutely it is about what you believe. If you think the statement "atheism is simply a refusal to deny the obvious" is garbage, then you have to be prepared to explain why you think it is so obvious God exists. Especially if you're going to dismiss the credibility an entire explanation based on that single sentence. For whatever reason, you seem to think it is somehow constructive to say "his view is garbage because of one sentence, and I don't need his opinion or care what you think".

A simple "I disagree with that" statement would have been better for your case, but instead I guess you decided a point needed to be made.
 
Absolutely it is about what you believe. If you think the statement "atheism is simply a refusal to deny the obvious" is garbage, then you have to be prepared to explain why you think it is so obvious God exists. Especially if you're going to dismiss the credibility an entire explanation based on that single sentence. For whatever reason, you seem to think it is somehow constructive to say "his view is garbage because of one sentence, and I don't need his opinion or care what you think".

A simple "I disagree with that" statement would have been better for your case, but instead I guess you decided a point needed to be made.
I don't have to be prepared to do anything. The two of you are trying to convince me. You didn't.

I provided a list of questions that neither of us can answer in an effort to show just how "obvious" the basis of atheism really is.

As to that sentence, it's how the man freaking defined what he is. It was his very own definition of atheism. Not some long lost sentence in the midst of a discussion about the cosmos. It was the topic sentence in a paragraph about his religion. Please.
 
I don't have to be prepared to do anything. The two of you are trying to convince me. You didn't.

I provided a list of questions that neither of us can answer in an effort to show just how "obvious" the basis of atheism really is.

As to that sentence, it's how the man freaking defined what he is. It was his very own definition of atheism. Not some long lost sentence in the midst of a discussion about the cosmos. It was the topic sentence in a paragraph about his religion. Please.

A thesis statement?
 
I guess all I need is faith in Jesus and I can claim to have the answers to all this?

Nobody knows. But just because nobody knows doesn't mean religion has the best answer. When religion tries to answer such questions it only shows the elasticity religious belief combined with the current hole in knowledge we have gained as a species.

If the simple "God did it" answer suffices for you then so be it.

No, why would that provide the answers?
 
One can have no involvement in religious affairs and still believe in God. There is a difference. Why do we feel the need to label someone who doesn't believe in God? Do we need a label for someone that doesn't believe in unicorns, ufo's, Zeus, Thor....or any other thing that is equally unsupported by evidence? No. We don't. Words like "evidence", "Reason", and "Common Sense" suffice just fine when addressing them.



I have read the Hadith and The Book of Mormon. I actually have extended family members that are Mormon. Mormonism is worse than traditional Christianity because it is Christianity plus some really dumb ideas, IMO. Mormon's believe the garden of eden is in Jackson County, MO. So whatever probability you place on Jesus coming back, it has to be even less that he will do it from his throne in the backwoods of the midwest United States. Of course, there is the crazy type beliefs with temple rituals, magic underwear, 3 Nephites, and re-written histories, etc...that accompanies all religions.

Traditional Hadiths is where the 72 virgins belief comes from, believe it or not, not from the Qu'ran. It details the life and teaching of Muhammed, including his military conquests and young bride. The only thing I have gathered from it is he was nothing more than an illiterate epileptic pedophile who showed a capability for leadership. The Qu'ran is supposedly very elegant when read in Arabic. I wouldn't know, and I wasn't all that impressed with it anyway.



What exactly do you consider that to be? I suspect I hear a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot argument lurking here somewhere.




Nevertheless, I have given up trying to understand every single system of belief and weighing one over another. From a philosophical standpoint, and using Christianity as a case study, this is an excellent article explaning why none of it is even necessary in the first place:

Butterflies and Wheels Article

A nice summary, in case you don't want to read it all:

Read this!

(for this is what you believe.)

'What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.'
- Herbert A. Simon. Nobel Laureate Economist

Be careful to click the DIOGENES OF SINOPE link and know you are no more than a dog.


Selected verses of Rubaiyat of Omar Kayyam;

I
Wake! For the Sun, who scatter'd into flight
The Stars before him from the Field of Night,
Drives Night along with them from Heav'n, and strikes
The Sultán's Turret with a Shaft of Light.

II
Before the phantom of False morning died,
Methought a Voice within the Tavern cried,
"When all the Temple is prepared within,
Why nods the drowsy Worshipper outside ?"

III
And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted - "Open then the Door!
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more."

IV
Now the New Year reviving old Desires,
The thoughtful Soul to Solitude retires,
Where the WHITE HAND OF MOSES on the Bough
Puts out, and Jesus from the Ground suspires.

XII
A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread - and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness -
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

XXI
Ah, my Beloved, fill the Cup that clears
TO-DAY of past Regrets and future Fears:
To-morrow! - Why, To-morrow I may be
Myself with Yesterday's Sev'n thousand Years.

XXII
For some we loved, the loveliest and the best
That from his Vintage rolling Time hath prest,
Have drunk their Cup a Round or two before,
And one by one crept silently to rest.

XXIV
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and - sans End.

XXV
Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare,
And those that after some TO-MORROW stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries,
"Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There."

XXVIII
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd -
"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."

XXXII
There was the Door to which I found no Key;
There was the Veil through which I might not see:
Some little talk awhile of ME and THEE
There was - and then no more of THEE and ME.

XLI
Perplext no more with Human or Divine,
To-morrow's tangle to the winds resign,
And lose your fingers in the tresses of
The Cypress-slender Minister of Wine.

XLII
And if the Wine you drink, the Lip you press,
End in what All begins and ends in - Yes;
Think then you are TO-DAY what YESTERDAY
You were - TO-MORROW you shall not be less.

XLIII
So when that Angel of the darker Drink
At last shall find you by the river-brink,
And, offering his Cup, invite your Soul
Forth to your Lips to quaff - you shall not shrink.
XLIV

Why, if the Soul can fling the Dust aside,
And naked on the Air of Heaven ride,
Were't not a Shame - were't not a Shame for him
In this clay carcase crippled to abide ?

XLV
'Tis but a Tent where takes his one day's rest
A Sultán to the realm of Death addrest;
The Sultán rises, and the dark Ferrásh [tent-pitcher]
Strikes, and prepares it for another Guest.

XLVI
And fear not lest Existence closing your
Account, and mine, should know the like no more;
The Eternal Sáki from that Bowl has pour'd
Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.

XLVII
When You and I behind the Veil are past,
Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
As the Sea's self should heed a pebble-cast.

XLIX
Would you that spangle of Existence spend
About THE SECRET - quick about it, Friend!
A Hair perhaps divides the False and True -
And upon what, prithee, may life depend ?

L
A Hair perhaps divides the False and True,
Yes; and a single Alif were the clue -
Could you but find it - to the Treasure-house,
And peradventure to THE MASTER too;

LI
Whose secret Presence, through Creation's veins
Running Quicksilver-like eludes your pains;
Taking all shapes from Máh to Máhi [fish to moon]; and
They change and perish all but He remains;

LII
A moment guess'd - then back behind the Fold
Immerst of Darkness round the Drama roll'd
Which, for the Pastime of Eternity,
He doth Himself contrive, enact, behold.

LIII
But if in vain, down on the stubborn floor
Of Earth, and up to Heav'n's unopening Door,
You gaze TO-DAY, while You are You - how then
TO-MORROW, when You shall be You no more ?

LIV
Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute;
Better be jocund with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

LV
You know, my Friends, with what a brave Carouse
I made a Second Marriage in my house;
Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,
And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.

LVI
For "IS" and "IS-NOT" though with Rule and Line
And "UP-AND-DOWN" by Logic I define,
Of all that one should care to fathom, I
Was never deep in anything but - Wine.

LVIII
And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
Came shining through the Dusk an Angel Shape
Bearing a Vessel on his Shoulder; and
He bid me taste of it; and 'twas - the Grape!

LIX
The Grape that can with Logic absolute
The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:
The sovereign Alchemist that - in a trice
Life's leaden metal into Gold transmute:

LXIV
Strange, is it not ? that of the myriads who
Before us pass'd the door of Darkness through,
Not one returns to tell us of the Road,
Which to discover we must travel too.

LXV
The Revelations of Devout and Learn'd
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn'd,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep
They told their comrades, and to Sleep return'd.

LXX
The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes,
But Here or There as strikes the Player goes;
And He that toss'd you down into the Field,
He knows about it all - HE knows - HE knows!

LXXI
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

LXXIV
YESTERDAY This Day's Madness did prepare;
TO-MORROW'S Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where.

LXXVII
And this I know: whether the one True Light
Kindle to Love - or Wrath - consume me quite,
One Flash of It within the Tavern caught
Better than in the Temple lost outright.

LXXXI
Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
And ev'n with Paradise devise the Snake:
For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
Is blacken'd - Man's forgiveness give - and take!

LXXXII
As under cover of departing Day
Slunk hunger-stricken Ramazán away,
Once more within the Potter's house alone
I stood, surrounded by the Shapes of Clay.

continued:
 
LXXXIII
Shapes of all Sorts and Sizes, great and small,
That stood along the floor and by the wall;
And some loquacious Vessels were; and some
Listen'd perhaps, but never talk'd at all.

LXXXIV
Said one among them - "Surely not in vain
My substance of the common Earth was ta'en
And to this Figure moulded, to be broke,
Or trampled back to shapeless Earth again."

LXXXV
Then said a Second - "Ne'er a peevish Boy
Would break the Bowl from which he drank in joy;
And He that with his hand the Vessel made
Will surely not in after Wrath destroy."

LXXXVI
After a momentary silence spake
Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry:
What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake ?"

LXXXVII
Whereat some one of the loquacious Lot -
I think a Súfi pipkin - waxing hot -
"All this of Pot and Potter - Tell me, then,
Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot ?"

LXXXVIII
"Why," said another, "Some there are who tell
Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
The luckless Pots he marr'd in making - Pish!
He's a Good Fellow, and 'twill all be well."

LXXXIX
"Well," murmur'd one, "Let whoso make or buy,
My Clay with long Oblivion is gone dry:
But fill me with the old familiar Juice
Methinks I might recover by and by."

XC
So while the Vessels one by one were speaking,
The little Moon look'd in that all were seeking:
And then they jogg'd each other, "Brother! Brother,
Now for the Porter's shoulder-knot a-creaking!"

XCI
Ah, with the Grape my fading life provide,
And wash the Body whence the Life has died,
And lay me, shrouded in the living Leaf,
By some not unfrequented Garden-side.

XCII
That ev'n my buried Ashes such a snare
Of. Vintage shall fling up into the Air
As not a True-believer passing by
But shall be overtaken unaware.

XCIII
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in this World much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

XCIV
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore - but was I sober when I swore ?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.

XCV
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour - well,
I wonder often what the Vintners buy
One half so precious as the stuff they sell.

XCVI
Yet Ah, that Spring should vanish with the Rose!
That Youth's sweet-scented manuscript should close!
The Nightingale that in the branches sang,
Ah whence, and whither flown again, who knows!

XCVII
Would but the Desert of the Fountain yield
One glimpse - if dimly, yet indeed, reveal'd,
To which the fainting Traveller might spring,
As springs the trampled herbage of the field!

ejacuscroll.jpg


XCVIII
Would but some winged Angel ere too late
Arrest the yet unfolded Roll of Fate,
And make the stern Recorder otherwise
Enregister, or quite obliterate!

XCIX
Ah Love! could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits - and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

C
Yon rising Moon that looks for us again -
How oft hereafter will she wax and wane;
How oft hereafter rising look for us
Through this same Garden - and for one in vain!

CI
And when like her, Wine-bearer, you shall pass
Among the Guests Star-scatter'd on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
Where I made One - turn down an empty Glass!

--------------------------
Umar ibn Ibrahim al-Khayyami is better known to us as Omar Khayyám. He lived from circa 1048 to 1131, and few today realize how extensive his interests were.

As a mathematician he greatly expanded on al-Khwarizmi's algebraic principles and on Euclid's geometry.

As an astronomer he spent 18 years working in an observatory in Isfahan, where he measured the length of the solar year more accurately than any previous astronomer (at 365.24219858156 days). He also devised a solar calendar with eight leap years every 33 years, a great deal more accurate than the Gregorian correction of the Julian calendar (which was finally promulgated in 1582). Knowing this we can better appreciate:

LVII
Ah, but my Computations, People say,
Reduced the Year to better reckoning ? - Nay,
'Twas only striking from the Calendar
Unborn To-morrow and dead Yesterday.

Another interpretation of the first verse could be:

Awaken from the Unawareness you have been 'educated' into and let the dawn of Awareness strangle the arrogance of mere knowledge. Let the cruel light of Wisdom, gentle at first, irradiate your consciousness.
 
Part an parcel in reply:

One can have no involvement in religious affairs and still believe in God. There is a difference. Why do we feel the need to label someone who doesn't believe in God? Do we need a label for someone that doesn't believe in unicorns, ufo's, Zeus, Thor....or any other thing that is equally unsupported by evidence? No. We don't. Words like "evidence", "Reason", and "Common Sense" suffice just fine when addressing them.

'atheist' is defined as; "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

What is your problem with that definition?

Sam Harris, says it better than I can:


Sam Harris isn't fit to kiss Ed Abbey's a$$!
If that is the best you have to offer, you have nothing.



rjd970 said:
I have read the Hadith and The Book of Mormon. I actually have extended family members that are Mormon. Mormonism is worse than traditional Christianity because it is Christianity plus some really dumb ideas, IMO. Mormon's believe the garden of eden is in Jackson County, MO. So whatever probability you place on Jesus coming back, it has to be even less that he will do it from his throne in the backwoods of the midwest United States. Of course, there is the crazy type beliefs with temple rituals, magic underwear, 3 Nephites, and re-written histories, etc...that accompanies all religions.

Traditional Hadiths is where the 72 virgins belief comes from, believe it or not, not from the Qu'ran. It details the life and teaching of Muhammed, including his military conquests and young bride. The only thing I have gathered from it is he was nothing more than an illiterate epileptic pedophile who showed a capability for leadership. The Qu'ran is supposedly very elegant when read in Arabic. I wouldn't know, and I wasn't all that impressed with it anyway.

I don't know about the book of the Mormon although I've read a good bit of it. I pretty much agree about the false prophet Muhammed.

I surmise you are skeptical about the return of Jesus?

How do you define the word "religion?"



rjd970 said:
What exactly do you consider that to be? I suspect I hear a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot argument lurking here somewhere.

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (among others) had something in common, what was that?? Their socialist religion perhaps?? Not about what I had to say about that though, but a pretty good guess.




rjd970 said:
Nevertheless, I have given up trying to understand every single system of belief and weighing one over another. From a philosophical standpoint, and using Christianity as a case study, this is an excellent article explaining why none of it is even necessary in the first place:

Butterflies and Wheels Article

A nice summary, in case you don't want to read it all:

That is an insult to my (or anyone's) intelligence, Edmung Standing must be an idiot of the first order.

In the first place, Rowan Williams is either a charlatan or a fool. Standing's refutation of Williams is like unto two retarded citizens discussing Einstein's Theory of Relativity or the Pythagorean Theorem.

I thought you were interested in serious discussion, obviously I was mistaken.

Digest this theology, from Jesus Himself;

"God doesn't desire that any man be destroyed."

but

"Nowhere is it written that a man must be saved."

And as Yogi Berra has said; "When you come to a fork in the road....Take it."

The choice is all yours, live with it, die with it and then see what becomes of it.
 
And I found the whole idea of personal faith, organized religion, and group think to be a farce and a racket.

Life is much more interesting and fulfilling when approached in an intellectually honest way.
Contrary to what you may believe, I still have very fulfilling spiritual experiences. Everytime I look at my son, listen to certain pieces of music, even when Tennessee beats Florida....I get the same feeling I got while in worship. I just choose not to call these experiences "God" and I take them for what they are: Purely human experiences that most choose to call something completely supernatural and unexplainable.

Why do atheists have to make the claim of their intellectual superiority? I could argue it is more open minded to acknowledge the possibility of some greater force as a designer than to rule it out a priori.

Let's use the "rational thought" or "scientific method" approach. There is a long list of unexplained phenomena. To a priori rule out some type of "design force" is not in line with rational scientific inquiry. There is simply insufficient evidence to rule it out. I can see agnosticism being consistent with rational, scientific inquiry but not atheism.
 
Why do atheists have to make the claim of their intellectual superiority? I could argue it is more open minded to acknowledge the possibility of some greater force as a designer than to rule it out a priori.

Let's use the "rational thought" or "scientific method" approach. There is a long list of unexplained phenomena. To a priori rule out some type of "design force" is not in line with rational scientific inquiry. There is simply insufficient evidence to rule it out. I can see agnosticism being consistent with rational, scientific inquiry but not atheism.
So I take it you don't buy the "obvious" argument set forth by rjd's hero.
 
At the heart of the matter...I still don't see anything intelligent about describing how something can be created out of nothing. No matter how intellectually superior that argument may appear to others.
 
Last edited:
I don't have to be prepared to do anything.

Since we are making sweeping labels of people's positions based on single statements, this one sums yours up nicely.

You end up in this discussion a lot around here. Seems to me you have more of an agenda about this than any other poster. Interesting to me that the atheists are the most vocal and vitriolic about the subject.

This is really good, even for you. Are you not here? Have you not been a part of all these conversations as well? Orange Empire and others have too. Please. I only stick out because I am one of the few with the opposing view. Nobody forced you to post. How many other people on this board doubt the existence of "God" in some form, or even that a higher power is behind everything? It's group think, and I am the unsilent minority. Given the sheer numbers and amount of people that like to spout their religious faith in society, the few atheists that do decide to be vocal do so being the minority. The majority in society are the same people that elected our last president, so yes, some atheists may want to turn a few heads.

I lurked on here for awhile before posting. I should have known it would be a mistake because we only end up going in circles anyway. And for some reason people find comfort in the "simple supernatural" (as if those two words even go together) explanation.

My issue is more with dogma and religion just happens to be the biggest one in this world. There is social, political, racial, etc...Whenever people start manufacturing bad ideas in earnest...holocaust, witch hunts, bigotry, terrorism, inquisitions, genocide, crusades, stalinism, killing blastocysts...the underlying belief driving these actions are always....always....preposterous.
 
Since we are making sweeping labels of people's positions based on single statements, this one sums yours up nicely.



This is really good, even for you. Are you not here? Have you not been a part of all these conversations as well? Orange Empire and others have too. Please. I only stick out because I am one of the few with the opposing view. Nobody forced you to post. How many other people on this board doubt the existence of "God" in some form, or even that a higher power is behind everything? It's group think, and I am the unsilent minority. Given the sheer numbers and amount of people that like to spout their religious faith in society, the few atheists that do decide to be vocal do so being the minority. The majority in society are the same people that elected our last president, so yes, some atheists may want to turn a few heads.

I lurked on here for awhile before posting. I should have known it would be a mistake because we only end up going in circles anyway. And for some reason people find comfort in the "simple supernatural" (as if those two words even go together) explanation.

My issue is more with dogma and religion just happens to be the biggest one in this world. There is social, political, racial, etc...Whenever people start manufacturing bad ideas in earnest...holocaust, witch hunts, bigotry, terrorism, inquisitions, genocide, crusades, stalinism, killing blastocysts...the underlying belief driving these actions are always....always....preposterous.
you've again said nothing.

I only entered this ridiculous circle at the very end on one small point.
 
Way too much luck involved for that to be chance IMO.

We just happen to be located in a favorable "arm" of the galaxy.

We just happen to be associated with a star that is just the right type.

We just happen to be located at just the right distance from that star.

The earths axis just happens to be tilted just right so life on earth is favorable

The earth just happens to be one of those planets with liquid water, making life here possible.

The list goes on and on.

Would you agree there is an awful lot going on here that made life possible here? Seems like a lot just to attribute to chance doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. This is where the magic of large numbers plays in.

Given the incomprehendable size of the universe, if the chances of all those happening in concert are one in a billion, or even one in a million billion, this same scenario could have happend tens of thousands of other times and other places, not including life arising in other ways than how we know it.
 
Since we are making sweeping labels of people's positions based on single statements, this one sums yours up nicely.



This is really good, even for you. Are you not here? Have you not been a part of all these conversations as well? Orange Empire and others have too. Please. I only stick out because I am one of the few with the opposing view. Nobody forced you to post. How many other people on this board doubt the existence of "God" in some form, or even that a higher power is behind everything? It's group think, and I am the unsilent minority. Given the sheer numbers and amount of people that like to spout their religious faith in society, the few atheists that do decide to be vocal do so being the minority. The majority in society are the same people that elected our last president, so yes, some atheists may want to turn a few heads.

I lurked on here for awhile before posting. I should have known it would be a mistake because we only end up going in circles anyway. And for some reason people find comfort in the "simple supernatural" (as if those two words even go together) explanation.

My issue is more with dogma and religion just happens to be the biggest one in this world. There is social, political, racial, etc...Whenever people start manufacturing bad ideas in earnest...holocaust, witch hunts, bigotry, terrorism, inquisitions, genocide, crusades, stalinism, killing blastocysts...the underlying belief driving these actions are always....always....preposterous.

And when those atheist do voice their opinion it usually contains something along the lines of religion being preposterous and those that choose to believe are somehow less intelligent for believing!

No wonder the response they so often get is negative.
 
At the heart of the matter...I still don't see anything intelligent about describing how something can be created out of nothing. No matter how intellectually superior that argument may appear to others.

Then you must explain where the supernatural "something" came from. It is, afterall, "something" and your saying it can't come from nothing.
 

VN Store



Back
Top