Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 05:16:05 PM

Title: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
I would like to better understand why Atheists logically reject the idea of God.  Explain here why you find the idea of God illogical, and list the most common fallacies used by theists when trying to prove the existence of God. For practical purposes we will assume God as defined by the monotheistic triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  However you can specify alternate definitions as it suits you.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190731/2f630944b0daec0eb4e9f34430ba982a.jpg)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 05:55:01 PM
Many atheists will tell you that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God. But I don't think that's an entirely sufficient reason to claim God doesn't exist. After all, we have no evidence at all that extraterrestrial intelligence exists, either, but many atheists believe that they (ETs) are nevertheless out there, based, I think primarily, on statistical reasons (the universe is just so vast that they must be out there, somewhere).

While there are no physical or logical reasons that aliens cannot exist, there are such reasons where the existence of God is concerned. The type of God believed in by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions cannot logically exist. I don't know whether such a being is physically possible or not, but I'm sure that it cannot logically exist, mainly due to incompatible properties arguments.

Here, in order to keep my typing to a minimum (I'm due to be somewhere else in a little while), is a survey of incompatible properties arguments:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

QuoteAtheological arguments (arguments for the nonexistence of God) can be divided into two main groups. One group consists of arguments which aim to show an incompatibility between two of God's properties. Let us call those "incompatible-properties arguments." The other group consists of arguments which aim to show an incompatibility between God's existence and the nature of the world. They may be called "God-vs.-world arguments." A prime example of one of those would be the Evidential Argument from Evil. This paper will only survey arguments in the first group. Arguments in the second group are discussed elsewhere.[1]

These are the attributes ascribed to the theistic God of the Abrahamic religions:

QuoteTo generate incompatible-properties arguments, it would be most helpful to have a list of divine attributes. I suggest the following. God is:
(a) perfect                   (g) personal
(b) immutable                 (h) free
(c) transcendent              (i) all-loving
(d) nonphysical               (j) all-just
(e) omniscient                (k) all-merciful
(f) omnipresent               (l) the creator of the universe


Are you comfortable with these attributes? Would you add or subtract any from that list? This will give us a context in which to discuss the God question.


Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
I especially like the Omniscient vs. Free Argument:


Quote9. The Omniscient-vs.-Free Argument
We now come to a more complicated argument, which pits property (e) against (h). One way of formulating it is presented by Dan Barker.[9] A slightly different version may be formulated as follows:

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

Some have denied that omniscience entails knowing all about the future. They say that omniscience only entails knowing what there is to know. But the future actions of free persons are open, and not there to be known about. Thus, not even an omniscient being could know about them. This may provide a basis for rejecting premise 3 of the argument.
This sort of objection to 3 can be attacked in many different ways. One way would be to affirm that an omniscient being would indeed need to know all about the future. All propositions about the future are either true or false, and an omniscient being, by definition, must know the truth of any proposition that is in fact true. Furthermore, theists, often following the Bible on this point, commonly attribute unrestricted knowledge of the future to God.[10] Indeed, if God does not know the future actions of any free beings, then there is very little, if any, pertaining to the future about which he can be certain. For no matter what the situation may be, there is always a chance that it will be affected by such actions.
Another way to attack the given objection is to maintain that, even if God does not know about the future actions of other free agents, he must know about his own future actions. One reason for this is that God's actions are all based on perfect justice and immutable law. There is never any caprice in them. His purposes and intentions have remained steadfast from all eternity, so anyone who totally understands God's purposes and intentions, as he himself does, would be able to infallibly predict his actions. It follows that God must know what he himself will and will not do in the future, which would establish the truth of premise 3 if it is taken to refer to God.
Premise 4 is a consequence of the definition of knowledge. If a proposition is known to be true, then it must be true and cannot be false. So, if X knows that Y will do Z, then it is impossible for Y not to do Z. And this is so even where X and Y are the same person.
Premise 6 says that a free agent can do what he doesn't do. That may sound odd at first, but when it is understood correctly, it seems correct. Suppose we identify what Y does as "act Z." Then in order for Y to be free, prior to doing Z, it must have been possible for Y to do Z and it must also have been possible for Y not to do Z. If it were not possible for Y not to do Z, then Y's doing of Z could not be regarded as a free act. Free acts are avoidable. You can't be free if you had to do the thing that you did. This seems intuitively right, though some forms of compatibilism might reject it. It is not a totally settled issue in philosophy. I leave it to the reader to ascertain whether or not premise 6 is correct. If it is, then I think the argument goes through.


If a being cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 06:17:29 PM
The logical argument against G-d, is of course the atheist version of Anselm and Aquinas.

As a theist, don't accept logical arguments in regard to G-d, in particular I don't accept Greek idealizations of G-d's qualities.  Which is where the logical argument for or against G-d come from usually.  I am profoundly anti-theology.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:22:51 PM
Oh cool! An anti-theological theist! What a strange critter!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
I would like to better understand why Atheists logically reject the idea of God.  Explain here why you find the idea of God illogical, and list the most common fallacies used by theists when trying to prove the existence of God. For practical purposes we will assume God as defined by the monotheistic triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  However you can specify alternate definitions as it suits you.

I don't find the idea of a god being illogical, I find the theist claim that a god exists, to be illogical, and unsupported by evidence.

1. there is insufficient demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support the claim that a god exists. This position I hold, does not mean that I claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist, only that no theist has ever met their burden of proof to convince me.

2. all the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god, have fatal flaws and fallacies.

Let's start with the most used philosophical argument, Kalam cosmological argument.

P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2 - The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
Conclusion - The universe has a cause.

Here are the problems with it.

Unsoundness:

Premise 1 is likely unsound, because virtual particles begin to exist seemingly without a cause. So, not everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2, is unsound, because it is entirely possible that the universe always existed, in some other form. The big bang does not state that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, only it began to expand 13.7 billion years ago.

Invalidness:

Premise 1 is using observations within the universe, to make a claim about the entire universe itself. This is known as the "fallacy of composition", which states, that just because something is true of part of something, does not mean it is true of the entire thing. This alone is enough to invalidate the entire argument.

But the argument also contains a fallacy of equivocation, in that it uses 2 different definitions of the term "begins to exist".  In premise 1, the definition is used to describe things we see within the universe beginning to exist from already existing matter and energy; trees, chairs, cars all begin to exist, ex materia.

But theists are not making the claim that a god created the universe ex materia, they are making the claim that a god created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing.

So, the argument can be rewritten like this, to reflect the flaws of what is actually being stated:

P1 - Whatever begins to exist ex materia (from preexisting matter and energy) has a cause;
P2 - The universe began to exist ex nihilo (from nothing);
Therefore:
Conclusion - The universe has a cause.

As I hope you can see, premise 1 and premise 2 are using the term, begins to exist, differently, thereby further invalidating the argument. This means that the argument also contains a category error fallacy.

The argument from design, has equally fatal flaws, which we can also talk about.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 07:17:16 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 06:17:29 PM
The logical argument against G-d, is of course the atheist version of Anselm and Aquinas.

As a theist, don't accept logical arguments in regard to G-d, in particular I don't accept Greek idealizations of G-d's qualities.  Which is where the logical argument for or against G-d come from usually.  I am profoundly anti-theology.

So, what exactly has you convinced that a god exists, if you have eliminated demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

I really want to know.

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 05:55:01 PM
Many atheists will tell you that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God. But I don't think that's an entirely sufficient reason to claim God doesn't exist. After all, we have no evidence at all that extraterrestrial intelligence exists, either, but many atheists believe that they (ETs) are nevertheless out there, based, I think primarily, on statistical reasons (the universe is just so vast that they must be out there, somewhere).

While there are no physical or logical reasons that aliens cannot exist, there are such reasons where the existence of God is concerned. The type of God believed in by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions cannot logically exist. I don't know whether such a being is physically possible or not, but I'm sure that it cannot logically exist, mainly due to incompatible properties arguments.

Here, in order to keep my typing to a minimum (I'm due to be somewhere else in a little while), is a survey of incompatible properties arguments:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

These are the attributes ascribed to the theistic God of the Abrahamic religions:


Are you comfortable with these attributes? Would you add or subtract any from that list? This will give us a context in which to discuss the God question.
Thanks, yes those properties are a great starting point for a definition, that I might tweak later based on how you interpret them.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on July 31, 2019, 08:35:48 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 05:16:05 PMFor practical purposes we will assume God as defined by the monotheistic triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
And that is...what, exactly?  There are almost as many different conceptions of gods as there are theists, and abrahamic believers are no exception.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 10:26:53 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:22:51 PM
Oh cool! An anti-theological theist! What a strange critter!

An anti-god theist.  You have no idea what you get bit by, when you blindly put your hand in the serpent hole.  I am a serpent/devil ... but I still have my legs and hands (unlike the sly one in the Garden of Eden).

I don't accept the schizophrenia of separating the good from the bad, and calling the good "god" and the bad "devil".  This is the general case in Hinduism, were they have asuras (gods) and devas (anti-gods).  But it is much more nuanced than Abrahamic religion.  The asuras can do bad things and the devas can do good things. 

Unlike Zoroastrianism, the E Persian simplification of the original Aryan religion, where there is only Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.  All the Abrahamic religions are strongly influenced thru the Persian Empire, hence the black/white POV they take.

Buddhism is yet more nuanced.  Gods are regarded as super-beings, of long but finite lifespan, and in fact it is better to be a human than a god, in terms of achieving nirvana.  Looking at theology, from only a Protestant Fundamentalist POV ... is terribly short sighted.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 10:33:23 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on July 31, 2019, 07:17:16 PM
So, what exactly has you convinced that a god exists, if you have eliminated demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

I really want to know.

I reject logic and reason in this case, as inappropriate tools.  A screwdriver when a saw is needed.  Religion is a part of art, and art comes from the emotions, not the intellect.  Theologians are like useless male tits.  Nothing wrong with science, if you use it properly, in the right circumstances.

So over a long time, my personal experience (which MikeCL correctly says isn't some kind of universal, it is subjective) has developed to this point, in the matter it has.  The result of countless life events small and large.

The story of an individual or even the story of a society, can't be scientifically analyzed.  It can never be objective, because it is always political on the deepest and widest sense.

I apply paint to the canvas, and seeing that, I repeat.  No intellectual analysis is necessary.  Your POV is just Vulcan prejudice against Klingons.  I say ... Kplah!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Sal1981 on July 31, 2019, 10:47:14 PM
I'm an apostate, I became an atheist after discovering inconsistencies in the Bible. Didn't think to join another religion without good cause, which has never been produced.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 31, 2019, 10:47:14 PM
I'm an apostate, I became an atheist after discovering inconsistencies in the Bible. Didn't think to join another religion without good cause, which has never been produced.

But that is the funny thing, if you apostate again, will you join the Christian snake handlers in Arkansas?  Oh, you were thinking of positive reasons for doing something.  That is only half the story.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:44:08 AM
I have simpler answers.  10, in fact...

1.  The universe without a deity seems perfectly rational. 
2.  No deity required to start one.
3.  Every deity yet described is unbelievable.
4.  Every deity yet described is stupid.
5.  Every deity yet described is (add your own insult).
6.  The universe doesn't need one.
7.  This is tricky.  If by some bizarre happenstance, there is one, it isn't concerned with us.  This isn't a
"it doesn't love us" thing, more of a Johnny Appleseed thing.  Plant seeds and move along...  I'm adding here to say that my parents were vaguely of that thought.
8.  No evidence of a deity s a BIGGIE.
9.  Theism is a lot like most superstitions, and I'm not superstitious.
10.  The less intelligent you are the more likely you are to believe in a deity...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Sal1981 on August 01, 2019, 07:59:23 AM
Quote from: Baruch on July 31, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
But that is the funny thing, if you apostate again, will you join the Christian snake handlers in Arkansas?  Oh, you were thinking of positive reasons for doing something.  That is only half the story.
I'm not motivated by theistic beliefs, if that is what you're getting at. And how would I go about "apostate again" from a default (non-) position? I'm thinking you don't grasp what "apostate" means. There is no double-negative to apostate, there is only on/off for that.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 01, 2019, 08:20:24 AM
It's not that I reject the idea of there being any god, I just don't see any reason to believe there is one.
I also don't see how this world, given the assumption that it does have a deity, would be different if there were no such god.
Most times when someone proposes a certain god with certain properties, however, they propose an accompanying  world we could come to expect that is different from this one, which makes their variety of a deity seem all the more unlikely.
And whenever they propose a being that is self-contradictoey, I also tend to tune out.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 08:38:12 AM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 01, 2019, 08:20:24 AM
It's not that I reject the idea of there being any god, I just don't see any reason to believe there is one.
I also don't see how this world, given the assumption that it does have a deity, would be different if there were no such god.
Most times when someone proposes a certain god with certain properties, however, they propose an accompanying  world we could come to expect that is different from this one, which makes their variety of a deity seem all the more unlikely.
And whenever they propose a being that is self-contradictoey, I also tend to tune out.

Obviously (ahem) very well put!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 31, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
I especially like the Omniscient vs. Free Argument:



If a being cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 31, 2019, 08:35:48 PM
And that is...what, exactly?  There are almost as many different conceptions of gods as there are theists, and abrahamic believers are no exception.
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:12:55 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You might be surprised that I agree with your basic definition of a deity.  Omnipotence, All-Knowing, Non-Time, and No Contradictions (like irresistible force vs immovable object), etc.  No being would BE a deity otherwise.  The powers come with the concept. 

Its just that, like that unicorn in my back yard that I never see because I'm always looking where it isn't, there is no such being.  I would be amazed at such a being, and be awestruck.  But that never happens.  Because it isn't actually "there".

And if you want a more specifically personal argument, it might be that any decent deity would make ITS existence obvious for the benefit of us dim-witted types.  I understand that faith is a test to you.  The trust is almost the thing itself.  But I don't think that way.  Would an omni-benevolent deity cast out a person for using the brain it itself gave?

If, in your view, we have brains for a reason (given by a deity) how would it condemn us for using it?  I realize this may be old arguments you have encountered before, but would you please deign to answer them?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 01, 2019, 07:59:23 AM
I'm not motivated by theistic beliefs, if that is what you're getting at. And how would I go about "apostate again" from a default (non-) position? I'm thinking you don't grasp what "apostate" means. There is no double-negative to apostate, there is only on/off for that.

No, I am not assuming you are theistic at all.  And your binary logic with one value being zero (not F) ... a difference in semantics ... I recognize but don't accept.  Aren't you just another faux Vulcan?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Trancendence per se isn't logical, since it must be transcending logic.  Anytime a theologian tries to define transcendence, I can only think that they are forgetting what the very word means.  Transcendence is not something that can be thought about, talked about or written down.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 11:40:33 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Correct.  But can you go past knowledge to understanding?  Otherwise this is just delusion and wish fulfillment.  If I am an Arab trader, must I imagine the Godhead to be just like me, only better?  Yes, atheists are willfully blind but not necessarily consciously so.  Much of what we do is done without being conscious that we are doing it.

There has to be some nuance between an objective manifestation and a subjective one.  This is hard.  I don't claim to understand it.  Do you?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 11:40:33 AM
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.

In Tibetan Buddhism, part of the high level meditation is to manifest a "yi-dam" a subjective deity that the meditator can see and interact with in trance.  This is not something we can relate to however, because you have to be an adept.  And only those who have experienced it (if they did) can relate this to one another.  A virgin cannot relate to a whore!  Of course, Tibetan Buddhism is heavily metaphysical and psychological, uniquely putting emphasis on "siddhis" or paranormal miracles.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:18:24 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:12:55 AM
You might be surprised that I agree with your basic definition of a deity.  Omnipotence, All-Knowing, Non-Time, and No Contradictions (like irresistible force vs immovable object), etc.  No being would BE a deity otherwise.  The powers come with the concept. 

Its just that, like that unicorn in my back yard that I never see because I'm always looking where it isn't, there is no such being.  I would be amazed at such a being, and be awestruck.  But that never happens.  Because it isn't actually "there".

And if you want a more specifically personal argument, it might be that any decent deity would make ITS existence obvious for the benefit of us dim-witted types.  I understand that faith is a test to you.  The trust is almost the thing itself.  But I don't think that way.  Would an omni-benevolent deity cast out a person for using the brain it itself gave?

If, in your view, we have brains for a reason (given by a deity) how would it condemn us for using it?  I realize this may be old arguments you have encountered before, but would you please deign to answer them?
Those are good questions, I'll try to answer.  If I miss something just reiterate it.  This material existence was created as a testing world.  It's not absolute reality, but rather an illusion.  However the mind tends to view things in idealistic forms, which can make life confusing.  The wisdom of such a world is that by facing tests and challenges, you develop character, and grow.  If everything was easy, we would just stagnate.  We are expected to work.  Belief is not a passive absorption of information, but an engagement of all our faculties in a constructive pursuit.  That's the whole idea of the world.  In an ideal world, God would spoon feed you proof of His existence, but it's not meant to be ideal; so we all have to work for it.  We have to really want it.  Otherwise, we are left to our own devices.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 11:40:33 AM
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.
I have seen God, but first I believed.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 01, 2019, 01:30:47 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I have seen God, but first I believed.

I have believed, but I have never seen. Eventually, I had to realize that my belief was contradictory to my experiences. I doubt you have seen God, but you have falsely attributed some event to his presence, as theists often do.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I have seen God, but first I believed.

This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

Does everyone have to believe before they will be able to see god?

How would you explain Saul/Paul, who was a nonbeliever, then had an apparition of god? He did not believe, but god appeared to him.

Why was Paul worthy of a Damascus Road experience, but I am required to believe based on bad reasoning?

How would you explain many of the 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.1 billion Hindus, that claim to have seen their god, also?

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 01, 2019, 01:30:47 PM
I have believed, but I have never seen. Eventually, I had to realize that my belief was contradictory to my experiences. I doubt you have seen God, but you have falsely attributed some event to his presence, as theists often do.

Exactly!

I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 01:49:00 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM
This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

Does everyone have to believe before they will be able to see god?

How would you explain Saul/Paul, who was a nonbeliever, then had an apparition of god? He did not believe, but god appeared to him.

Why was Paul worthy of a Damascus Road experience, but I am required to believe based on bad reasoning?

How would you explain many of the 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.1 billion Hindus, that claim to have seen their god, also?

Exactly!

I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.

Apparently, you weren't actually sincere ENOUGH.  ;)

I suppose one could argue that given all the failures of humankind to understand It, the minor quibbles of the world religions is of little concern to It. 

But I like your observations about "seeing" It.

And, BTW, I only say "It" because It couldn't be bothered with a gender...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 01, 2019, 08:20:24 AM
It's not that I reject the idea of there being any god, I just don't see any reason to believe there is one.

Yeah, any more than we have reason to believe in ghosts, or goblins or the Lock Ness Monster, or Santa Claus. And those things may actually have more evidence for their existence than any God does, though it, too, is anecdotal.


QuoteI also don't see how this world, given the assumption that it does have a deity, would be different if there were no such god.
Most times when someone proposes a certain god with certain properties, however, they propose an accompanying  world we could come to expect that is different from this one, which makes their variety of a deity seem all the more unlikely.
I think we could expect there to be evidence of such a God as the Abrahamic believers propose. And it is merely a proposition, just one of many possible propositions that could be espoused. But if there very well should be evidence and we still see none at all after all our searching for it, then we can assume the proposition is incorrect, or at least not worth further consideration.


I'm more curious about how the non-existence of God affects us, as humans abandoned, alone in a universe indifferent to human happiness. How do we cope when we know that it is only us who are responsible for our future wellbeing?

The God question has been settled, to my satisfaction, but the practical questions of the survival of humanity and the biosphere that sustains us are just beginning to come into the social consciousness. It may be too late, but maybe not. But there's no God to save the world, no superheroes, either, to save the world for us, no aliens are going to show up to stop us from killing the world. It's up to us, but if we don't care enough, or if we keep expecting some benevolent "other" to solve the problems we've made, then we're doomed to whatever fate awaits us.



Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:01:01 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.

Kind of a cosmic placebo, huh?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

You do know that all this is just a word game, don't you?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:35:57 AM
No, I am not assuming you are theistic at all.  And your binary logic with one value being zero (not F) ... a difference in semantics ... I recognize but don't accept.  Aren't you just another faux Vulcan?

Now see, AA, Baruch knows it's just a word game.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:11:43 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:41:19 AM
Yes, atheists are willfully blind but not necessarily consciously so.

Of what, exactly, is it that we atheists are "willfully blind" to? And if we're not conscious of it, whatever it is, then it's not "willful," now, is it?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:13:39 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:46:22 AM
A virgin cannot relate to a whore!

Oh, no! No virgin whores!? How will I cope?

:-P
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:16:13 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:18:24 PM
Belief is not a passive absorption of information, but an engagement of all our faculties in a constructive pursuit.

So, more of an art than a science, huh?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:19:23 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM
I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.

I never saw God either, but I'd love to see Penn&Teller saw God on stage! Saw that sucker right in two! I'd never figure out how they did it, either.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 01:57:35 PM
I'm more curious about how the non-existence of God affects us, as humans abandoned, alone in a universe indifferent to human happiness. How do we cope when we know that it is only us who are responsible for our future wellbeing?

The God question has been settled, to my satisfaction, but the practical questions of the survival of humanity and the biosphere that sustains us are just beginning to come into the social consciousness. It may be too late, but maybe not. But there's no God to save the world, no superheroes, either, to save the world for us, no aliens are going to show up to stop us from killing the world. It's up to us, but if we don't care enough, or if we keep expecting some benevolent "other" to solve the problems we've made, then we're doomed to whatever fate awaits us.

Well, there is likely no deity, (it would seem the evidence would actually be hard to hide).  But that doesn't mean there is no other intelligent life "out there".  Given that the basic building blocks seem rather common and that there are a lot of hospitable zone planets, I rather expect that the universe is filled with pond scum.  Given that a lot of questions are about "life", that seems an easy one.

Its the complexity ladder that gets tricky.  Let's say there is pond scum on most planets or moons capable of supporting it.  What next?  Our own history is a decent example.  Of course, there could be alternate paths.  Maybe plants and animals don't separate.  Mobile plantanimals?  OMG, Triffids!

But perhaps the division is logically forced by evolution.  Maybe its the animals like corals that stay in one spot and the plants that get hungry.  OMG, Triffids!

But maybe the animals win and eat plants.  Like here.  OMG, no triffids.

I try to stay aware of the Sagan logic about Venus.  We can't see a thing.  It's covered with clouds.  What are clouds?  Water.  If there is that much water, there must be swamps!  What grows in swamps (no, not triffids) ferns.  What eats ferns" ? Dinosaurs!  So we see nothing and conclude "dinosaurs". 

I loved Carl Sagan!

Same logic applies to deities...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:25:00 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:46:22 AM
A virgin cannot relate to a whore! 
Where did THAT come from?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:13:39 PM
Oh, no! No virgin whores!? How will I cope?

:-P

Wait, isn't that from the (not to be named holy book of the people who would kill squiilions to dispatch an unbeliever) Koran?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I have seen God, but first I believed.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

So have I.  As a mystic (kabbalist) I see G-d everywhere, all the time.  And G-d is no respecter of human religions.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:28:19 PM
So have I.  As a mystic (kabbalist) I see G-d everywhere, all the time.  And G-d is no respecter of human religions.

Poor Baruch.  One foot on the pier and the other on the dock.  And the boat is moving away...

Actually, I saw that happen.  I told my friend "don't do that", but did he listen?  No...  Sometimes I feel like Cassandra.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:34:13 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 01, 2019, 01:30:47 PM
I have believed, but I have never seen. Eventually, I had to realize that my belief was contradictory to my experiences. I doubt you have seen God, but you have falsely attributed some event to his presence, as theists often do.

You did those things your community was all about.  Nothing wrong with that.  You learned what you could from them and moved on.  Nothing wrong with that.  People go thru many lives (per Hinduism/Buddhism) without seeing G-d.  Anyone will see G-d when they are good and ready, G-d doesn't force this.

This doesn't work out so well for non-reincarnation religions.  I don't believe in conventional Hell, so a damp squib rather than raging volcano.  I attribute all human things to G-d.  I carefully separate, as a practicality, the human from the natural world.  Most people in history have never done this.  They attribute lightning to Zeus.  This was made fun of even in Socrates' time.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:01:01 PM
Kind of a cosmic placebo, huh?

Don't knock placebos.  Your vision of intervention medicine is a disaster.  You have to help the mind heal itself, help the body heal itself.  You don't run ruffshod over the body or the mind, unless you practice medicine at "One Flew Over A Cockoo's Nest".
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 02:36:56 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I have seen God, but first I believed.
If I was convinced I saw God, I would believe, but it doesn't work when I go backwards, because no matter how much I believe, I can never equate belief with knowledge.  Of course, as Cavebear pointed out, maybe you're not sincere enough in your belief.  Although he winked when he said that, and for good reason, since I've recognized that theist apology as bullshit since I was ten.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 01:57:35 PM
Yeah, any more than we have reason to believe in ghosts, or goblins or the Lock Ness Monster, or Santa Claus. And those things may actually have more evidence for their existence than any God does, though it, too, is anecdotal.

I think we could expect there to be evidence of such a God as the Abrahamic believers propose. And it is merely a proposition, just one of many possible propositions that could be espoused. But if there very well should be evidence and we still see none at all after all our searching for it, then we can assume the proposition is incorrect, or at least not worth further consideration.


I'm more curious about how the non-existence of God affects us, as humans abandoned, alone in a universe indifferent to human happiness. How do we cope when we know that it is only us who are responsible for our future wellbeing?

The God question has been settled, to my satisfaction, but the practical questions of the survival of humanity and the biosphere that sustains us are just beginning to come into the social consciousness. It may be too late, but maybe not. But there's no God to save the world, no superheroes, either, to save the world for us, no aliens are going to show up to stop us from killing the world. It's up to us, but if we don't care enough, or if we keep expecting some benevolent "other" to solve the problems we've made, then we're doomed to whatever fate awaits us.

Humanity is not meant to survive.  No species is.  Change comes and can't be stopped.  Like that big meteor that nearly missed us last week.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:39:06 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:22:15 PM
Well, there is likely no deity, (it would seem the evidence would actually be hard to hide).  But that doesn't mean there is no other intelligent life "out there".  Given that the basic building blocks seem rather common and that there are a lot of hospitable zone planets, I rather expect that the universe is filled with pond scum.  Given that a lot of questions are about "life", that seems an easy one.

Its the complexity ladder that gets tricky.  Let's say there is pond scum on most planets or moons capable of supporting it.  What next?  Our own history is a decent example.  Of course, there could be alternate paths.  Maybe plants and animals don't separate.  Mobile plantanimals?  OMG, Triffids!

But perhaps the division is logically forced by evolution.  Maybe its the animals like corals that stay in one spot and the plants that get hungry.  OMG, Triffids!

But maybe the animals win and eat plants.  Like here.  OMG, no triffids.

I try to stay aware of the Sagan logic about Venus.  We can't see a thing.  It's covered with clouds.  What are clouds?  Water.  If there is that much water, there must be swamps!  What grows in swamps (no, not triffids) ferns.  What eats ferns" ? Dinosaurs!  So we see nothing and conclude "dinosaurs". 

I loved Carl Sagan!

Same logic applies to deities...

Yes, though I don't have a belief that there are ETs out there, I think it's more a matter of what we accept as a default position on their existence/non-existence. I use the default "no aliens" while many use the default "aliens." All of the aliens humans have imagined have been just that - imagined. Mere projections of our desires and fears, like gods. But the concept of alien intelligence doesn't seem to have any logical inconsistencies, so I concede that I could be wrong about the existence of aliens. But since the concept of God is filled to the rim with contradictions, I conclude that God does not exist. Of course, I could still be wrong and simply have yet encountered an argument that allows God a logical possibility of existing, an argument that clears up all of the seeming contradictions in the idea of God. But the fact is, I've yet to encounter that argument, so I'll continue with my working hypothesis that there is no God.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:11:43 PM
Of what, exactly, is it that we atheists are "willfully blind" to? And if we're not conscious of it, whatever it is, then it's not "willful," now, is it?

The will isn't necessarily conscious, it is a separate mental facility.  But the phrase is unfortunately confusing.  It sounds like you poke your own eyes out.  Unless I have a will to get up in the morning, I won't.  That is independent of consciousness, in that I can be conscious and still not choose to get up.  And per sleep walking, I can be unconscious and still have the will to get up.

But atheists are all powerful wizards.  In their own minds.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I have seen God, but first I believed.

Quote from: Jim Baker, televangelist
I started out by believing God for a newer car than the one I was driving. I started out believing God for a nicer apartment than I had. Then I moved up.

Religion can be lucrative.


:-P
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 02:36:56 PM
If I was convinced I saw God, I would believe, but it doesn't work when I go backwards, because no matter how much I believe, I can never equate belief with knowledge.  Of course, as Cavebear pointed out, maybe you're not sincere enough in your belief.  Although he winked when he said that, and for good reason, since I've recognized that theist apology as bullshit since I was ten.

If you have never seen G-d, and most have not, you won't know what to expect.  I didn't.  It isn't even paranormal.  It is like suddenly moving from prose to poetry.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:38:26 PM
Like that big meteor that nearly missed us last week.

Good thing it only "nearly" missed us, or we'd be in trouble!


:-P
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Now see, AA, Baruch knows it's just a word game.

Logographic anarchists.  All letters are bull shit.  Prove me wrong?  Yes, semantics is real.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:38:26 PM
Humanity is not meant to survive.  No species is.  Change comes and can't be stopped.  Like that big meteor that nearly missed us last week.

"Nearly missed us" would mean it hit us.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:45:56 PM
Good thing it only "nearly" missed us, or we'd be in trouble!


:-P

Nature happens.  I wouldn't want it to hit, but I would accept it if it did.  Same as the smaller one that hit Russia.  Both theists and atheists don't accept a reality other than the one they like.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:25:00 PM
Where did THAT come from?

As a demi-god, my every fart is a revelation.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:51:10 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Now see, AA, Baruch knows it's just a word game.

I am not your average bear, am I Boo Boo? (Yogi as Jesus).
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:54:29 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:31:45 PM
Poor Baruch.  One foot on the pier and the other on the dock.  And the boat is moving away...

Actually, I saw that happen.  I told my friend "don't do that", but did he listen?  No...  Sometimes I feel like Cassandra.

I did that at the Montgomery Ward warehouse when I was doing odd jobs.  They told us, when unloading a semi into the warehouse, watch your step, don't put your foot between the dock and the back of the truck (didn't have a moving ramp).  Of course it didn't take me long to do that with "one" of my legs.  I was able to regain my position but with a strain to my tendon.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:39:06 PM
Yes, though I don't have a belief that there are ETs out there, I think it's more a matter of what we accept as a default position on their existence/non-existence. I use the default "no aliens" while many use the default "aliens." All of the aliens humans have imagined have been just that - imagined. Mere projections of our desires and fears, like gods. But the concept of alien intelligence doesn't seem to have any logical inconsistencies, so I concede that I could be wrong about the existence of aliens. But since the concept of God is filled to the rim with contradictions, I conclude that God does not exist. Of course, I could still be wrong and simply have yet encountered an argument that allows God a logical possibility of existing, an argument that clears up all of the seeming contradictions in the idea of God. But the fact is, I've yet to encounter that argument, so I'll continue with my working hypothesis that there is no God.

G-d isn't an ET.  ETs aren't metaphysical, unless they are 60s hippies from Berkeley on 'shrooms.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:56:32 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:44:14 PM
Religion can be lucrative.


:-P

Socialists want to financially fail at everything (because autism) and blame it o something else.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
Logographic anarchists.  All letters are bull shit.  Prove me wrong?  Yes, semantics is real.

The difficulty of logograms is logarithmic!  No wonder so many Chinese learn phonogramic languages.

Hey, if Trump was Chinese, would that make him a Mandarin Orange?  (sorry)  Well, at least he wouldn't tweet much...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:57:26 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:46:36 PM
"Nearly missed us" would mean it hit us.

It did in 1/2 of the infinite versions of the multiverse.

@Cavebear ... liked your last joke.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:56:32 PM
Socialists want to financially fail at everything (because autism) and blame it o something else.

You are not only missing letters, you are missing whole words.  Should you eat an energy bar or go to bed?  Just mentioning...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 02:59:32 PM
You are not only missing letters, you are missing whole words.  Should you eat an energy bar or go to bed?  Just mentioning...

I modded my just previous post.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:57:26 PM
It did in 1/2 of the infinite versions of the multiverse.

@Cavebear ... liked your last joke.

Well, by that logic it did an infinite number of times.  Because what is half of infinity, after all? 

Thanks about the joke.  I'm like a hot dog. (on a roll).
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:39:06 PM
Yes, though I don't have a belief that there are ETs out there, I think it's more a matter of what we accept as a default position on their existence/non-existence. I use the default "no aliens" while many use the default "aliens." All of the aliens humans have imagined have been just that - imagined. Mere projections of our desires and fears, like gods. But the concept of alien intelligence doesn't seem to have any logical inconsistencies, so I concede that I could be wrong about the existence of aliens. But since the concept of God is filled to the rim with contradictions, I conclude that God does not exist. Of course, I could still be wrong and simply have yet encountered an argument that allows God a logical possibility of existing, an argument that clears up all of the seeming contradictions in the idea of God. But the fact is, I've yet to encounter that argument, so I'll continue with my working hypothesis that there is no God.
My default is that they do exist based on the vastness of the universe, but I recognize that is only an assumption on my part, because I have no actual knowledge, but only an extrapolation of a quantity that is unknown to begin with.  Oddly, many theists claim there cannot be aliens with a lot more assuredness than either you or I, because they think the Bible tells them so, although I don't think the Bible address the actual existence of extraterrestrials, unless maybe it's life in Heaven or Hell.  Come to think of it, the Mormons might actually be ahead of most Christians on this one, with the dead heads of a Mormon households being given their own planets to rule, although in fairness they have the advantage of post Biblical science, with the understanding that the Earth is a planet, like Venus and Mars.  Christians don't have that luxury, even in spite of years watching Star Trek reruns.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:03:29 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 03:00:13 PM
I modded my just previous post.

And very well done!  As Hancock would say "Good Job"!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:08:52 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 03:02:25 PM
My default is that they do exist based on the vastness of the universe, but I recognize that is only an assumption on my part, because I have no actual knowledge, but only an extrapolation of a quantity that is unknown to begin with.  Oddly, many theists claim there cannot be aliens with a lot more assuredness than either you or I, because they think the Bible tells them so, although I don't think the Bible address the actual existence of extraterrestrials, unless maybe it's life in Heaven or Hell.  Come to think of it, the Mormons might actually be ahead of most Christians on this one, with the dead heads of a Mormon households being given their own planets to rule, although in fairness they have the advantage of post Biblical science, with the understanding that the Earth is a planet, like Venus and Mars.  Christians don't have that luxury, even in spite of years watching Star Trek reruns.

I agree based on vastness.  Statistics tell us that there are generally 4 states of possibilities.  An event might not ever happen, happen once, or happen many times.  What is nearly impossible is that an event happen only twice.

So the sitch is that if we find evidence of a second, then it has to be many times...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:15:00 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:48:58 PM
As a demi-god, my every fart is a revelation.

So, you use Revelation H?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:15:00 PM
So, you use Revelation H?

I missed that post of his, I think (or do I?) but I'm reminded of an 1800s London story where some poor guy had dogs following him all around and was accused of stealing the.  At the Judges Docket, it turned out that in a pub fight, his opponent has shoved an umbrella up the guy's butt and the tip broke off.  So every time he "sighed" (farted) all the local dogs heard a whistle...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:25:26 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 03:02:25 PM
My default is that they do exist based on the vastness of the universe, but I recognize that is only an assumption on my part, because I have no actual knowledge, but only an extrapolation of a quantity that is unknown to begin with.  Oddly, many theists claim there cannot be aliens with a lot more assuredness than either you or I, because they think the Bible tells them so, although I don't think the Bible address the actual existence of extraterrestrials, unless maybe it's life in Heaven or Hell.  Come to think of it, the Mormons might actually be ahead of most Christians on this one, with the dead heads of a Mormon households being given their own planets to rule, although in fairness they have the advantage of post Biblical science, with the understanding that the Earth is a planet, like Venus and Mars.  Christians don't have that luxury, even in spite of years watching Star Trek reruns.

Yeah, I just set my default at "none," realizing that I might have to change that to "some" eventually. But even if there are aliens out there, they almost certainly will never interact with Earth, since they'd have to be within at least a few thousand light years, I'd think, for us to even know they exist.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:34:01 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:25:26 PM
Yeah, I just set my default at "none," realizing that I might have to change that to "some" eventually. But even if there are aliens out there, they almost certainly will never interact with Earth, since they'd have to be within at least a few thousand light years, I'd think, for us to even know they exist.

My default is set at "probable" but as you say, space is vast.  I don't expect any alien spacecraft to show up soon.  And if any did, the difference in technology would make any objection moot.  Star Trek will never happen.  You are either the arrivees or you're dead if they want you to be. 

I killed an ant colony last week.  They were just pests... 

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:40:00 PM
If they're very far away, we'd see them as they were long ago, maybe in a galaxy far away.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:50:01 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:40:00 PM
If they're very far away, we'd see them as they were long ago, maybe in a galaxy far away.

I wonder how many OTHER people realize that Star Wars happened far away and in the past...  90% of people I know think it is the future.

Thank you...

PS:  10 more minutes and I can stop drinking wine and have a COCKTAIL!  It will be 5 o clockers...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:55:19 PM
Ten minutes can take forever to pass when anticipation is making you wait! LOL
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:58:41 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 04:55:19 PM
Ten minutes can take forever to pass when anticipation is making you wait! LOL

I guess I'll wait...It will be 5 o clock somewhere later...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 05:08:25 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM
This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

Does everyone have to believe before they will be able to see god?

How would you explain Saul/Paul, who was a nonbeliever, then had an apparition of god? He did not believe, but god appeared to him.

Why was Paul worthy of a Damascus Road experience, but I am required to believe based on bad reasoning?

How would you explain many of the 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.1 billion Hindus, that claim to have seen their god, also?

Exactly!

I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.
God doesn't override the normal senses without a specific reason.  In the case of Paul he was destined to found Christianity, the pivotal player in reaching billions for Christ.  He needed extra fortification to carry out this enormous mission.  Us everyday folk have to work for our epiphanies.  Paul was a believer far prior to this, in fact he was a scholar and religious zealot.  It's not like he sat around waiting and one day randomly got "zapped" out of the blue.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:16:09 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 05:08:25 PM
God doesn't override the normal senses without a specific reason.  In the case of Paul he was destined to found Christianity, the pivotal player in reaching billions for Christ.  He needed extra fortification to carry out this enormous mission.  Us everyday folk have to work for our epiphanies.  Paul was a believer far prior to this, in fact he was a scholar and religious zealot.  It's not like he sat around waiting and one day randomly got "zapped" out of the blue.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I should probably leave this to the biblical researcher types here, but I found this on Wikipedia, and maybe it applies or not.  It surprised ME!

"Paul's conversion experience is discussed in both the Pauline epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles. According to both sources, Paul was not a follower of Jesus and did not know him before his crucifixion. Paul's conversion occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. "
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 05:08:25 PM
God doesn't override the normal senses without a specific reason.

How do you know this?

As far as I can tell, it is a completely unsupported assertion.

QuoteIn the case of Paul he was destined to found Christianity, the pivotal player in reaching billions for Christ.

So, for those of us that find the entire story lacking evidence and logic, god didn't do such a good job appearing to Paul. Again, your god seems to value gullibility and credulity much more than critical thinking, evidence and logic.

QuoteHe needed extra fortification to carry out this enormous mission.  Us everyday folk have to work for our epiphanies.

So, your god plays favorites. He makes his existence obvious for some, and makes others work for it.

First of all, it seems like an entirely unfair system, which to me is immoral.

I also find it interesting, that god had no problem making hi existence known, in obvious ways in the past, when people were ignorant, illiterate, barbaric, and superstitious, but as these things have improved, god makes his existence known through giving people feelings and impressions.

QuotePaul was a believer far prior to this, in fact he was a scholar and religious zealot.  It's not like he sat around waiting and one day randomly got "zapped" out of the blue.

You are correct. I did not remember Christian mythology correctly. Thanks for correcting the story for me.

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 05:08:25 PM
God doesn't override the normal senses without a specific reason.  In the case of Paul he was destined to found Christianity, the pivotal player in reaching billions for Christ.  He needed extra fortification to carry out this enormous mission.  Us everyday folk have to work for our epiphanies.  Paul was a believer far prior to this, in fact he was a scholar and religious zealot.  It's not like he sat around waiting and one day randomly got "zapped" out of the blue.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Wikipedia disagrees with you on that last part.  Do you care?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 01, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.
It's almost like it's all in the mind.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 05:47:37 PM
Yeah, almost...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 02:52:49 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:16:09 PM
I should probably leave this to the biblical researcher types here, but I found this on Wikipedia, and maybe it applies or not.  It surprised ME!

"Paul's conversion experience is discussed in both the Pauline epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles. According to both sources, Paul was not a follower of Jesus and did not know him before his crucifixion. Paul's conversion occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. "

Yes.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 02:54:22 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 01, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
It's almost like it's all in the mind.

Yes.  But do atheists hate their own minds, or just everyone else's??  I think the latter.  Most of us here are pretty anti-social.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 07:39:47 AM


Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM
This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

No doubt.  What we believe literally shapes reality.  There is scientific evidence for this in the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton. https://www.brucelipton.com/about
So, you choose your reality.  You are the captain of your ship, it will go where you direct it.  If you don't want God, He will never force Himself into your awareness. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:00:31 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:41:19 AM
Correct.  But can you go past knowledge to understanding?  Otherwise this is just delusion and wish fulfillment.  If I am an Arab trader, must I imagine the Godhead to be just like me, only better?  Yes, atheists are willfully blind but not necessarily consciously so.  Much of what we do is done without being conscious that we are doing it.

There has to be some nuance between an objective manifestation and a subjective one.  This is hard.  I don't claim to understand it.  Do you?
I don't fully understand your question.  Sounds like you're inviting me into a kabbalistic conversation, and I'm a mere novice in that area.  It has a way of levelling you--in the sense of throwing you on your face I mean.  Sufficient for me is the realization that understanding cannot be attained with the intellect--which is essentially like a sieve in functionality.  The first step to understanding is neutralizing the intellect's incessant chatter.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Now see, AA, Baruch knows it's just a word game.
@Baruch and I would agree that the universes are made of letters and words.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:15:12 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:16:13 PM
So, more of an art than a science, huh?
It's a blend of both.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:25:59 AM
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 02:36:56 PM
If I was convinced I saw God, I would believe, but it doesn't work when I go backwards, because no matter how much I believe, I can never equate belief with knowledge.  Of course, as Cavebear pointed out, maybe you're not sincere enough in your belief.  Although he winked when he said that, and for good reason, since I've recognized that theist apology as bullshit since I was ten.
I can't measure anyone's sincerity.  But many are under the impression that belief is a passive intellectual assent.  In actuality, it is a struggle.  Like when you struggle to get that job, or that car or whatever you want--but more intense, and the struggle is within the self.  When you're on your knees pleading, begging, crying for guidance---that's when God shows up.   

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:25:59 AM
many are under the impression that belief is a passive intellectual assent.  In actuality, it is a struggle.
I believed I could struggle my way to believing at one time.  But it turned out not to be true because the basic nature of belief is that believing does not make anything true.  Truth is independent of belief, desire, and need.  Although Donald Trump would disagree.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:19:16 AM
Very perceptive questions.  I value critical thinking as you do.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
How do you know this?

As far as I can tell, it is a completely unsupported assertion.
Any information I give about God is based on the scripture.  I have spent my life contemplating scriptures, since before I could read--approximately 37 years.  This includes the Bible, some Hindu scriptures, Buddhist Sutras, Kabbalah, the Qur'an, and many others.  I consider the Qur'an to be the final and authoritative revealed scripture.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
So, for those of us that find the entire story lacking evidence and logic, god didn't do such a good job appearing to Paul. Again, your god seems to value gullibility and credulity much more than critical thinking, evidence and logic.
The vision was intended for Paul and him alone.  Obviously it was profoundly successful in convincing him since it instantly changed him from a Christian--exterminator to the greatest missionary in history.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
So, your god plays favorites. He makes his existence obvious for some, and makes others work for it.

First of all, it seems like an entirely unfair system, which to me is immoral.
No doubt God has a detailed ranking system which carries on into the afterlife.  However it has nothing to do with favoritism.  God is "no respector of persons.". Rather, it is strictly performance-based.  Paul earned it, and anyone else can too if they work hard enough.  When I suggested Paul was extraordinary I meant it in the sense that he was extraordinary in his devotion, which had earned him an important mission.
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2019, 05:28:09 PM
I also find it interesting, that god had no problem making hi existence known, in obvious ways in the past, when people were ignorant, illiterate, barbaric, and superstitious, but as these things have improved, god makes his existence known through giving people feelings and impressions.
The type of revelation is suited to humanity's level of development and evolution, and culture.  For neo-stone age cultures you need something really dramatic.  In modern times, more refined means are appropriate.  Many people are still having visions and revelations to this day--not just feelings and emotions.  But since most of us are highly attuned to feelings and such, this is the most common medium of revelation.  Did you know memory is linked to emotion?




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:21:30 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Wikipedia disagrees with you on that last part.  Do you care?
Link?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:26:11 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 01, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
It's almost like it's all in the mind.
Almost, but that's a simplistic explanation.  God has a detectable, independent reality which is at the same time intimately interwoven into the fabric of the self.  We religious types struggle to put it into words, as the experience of it transcends thought and material existence.  The presence of God is everywhere, it's only a matter of attuning the heart to perceive it.  Reality is interactive. However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 09:48:08 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:26:11 AM
... However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


And so you know exactly how God thinks. Wow.............
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:26:11 AM
Almost, but that's a simplistic explanation.  God has a detectable, independent reality which is at the same time intimately interwoven into the fabric of the self.  We religious types struggle to put it into words, as the experience of it transcends thought and material existence.  The presence of God is everywhere, it's only a matter of attuning the heart to perceive it.  Reality is interactive. However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

I know what you're talking about, because I've been there. Problem is, it's all psychological; it's in your head. If God were really detectable, we would see signs of his presence in an objective, laboratory setting. But the only way you "detect" God is through your feelings and primed imagination.

People tend to attribute personhood to things that don't have it, like the traffic light that changes just in time to stop you, as if it's just trying to make you mad. Early man gave personhood to animals and aspects of nature, like the sun and the sea. But as those things became less mysterious, the gods retreated into the more abstract, metaphysical realm, where they could remain unknowable. Now, some of us continue to cling to the illogical notion of God because, like Linus van Pelt's blanket, it gives them comfort to think that some cosmic being has their back. Even though this supposedly benevolent god doesn't ever step in to stop man made or natural tragedies... What good is your god, really?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
@Baruch and I would agree that the universes are made of letters and words.

You think we live in the Matrix?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
You think we live in the Matrix?

Humans don't know the "qualia".  We only know the models of the "qualia".  And many of the models are quite functional within range.  But the model isn't the reality.  The reality is ineffable.  Then, speaking of the models, if they aren't verbal to begin with, we are dealing with words.  Naive realism says, what I see is reality.  A cat is a cat, but there isn't anything underlying "catness" (no analysis of evidence).
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:20:48 AM
I know what you're talking about, because I've been there. Problem is, it's all psychological; it's in your head. If God were really detectable, we would see signs of his presence in an objective, laboratory setting. But the only way you "detect" God is through your feelings and primed imagination.

People tend to attribute personhood to things that don't have it, like the traffic light that changes just in time to stop you, as if it's just trying to make you mad. Early man gave personhood to animals and aspects of nature, like the sun and the sea. But as those things became less mysterious, the gods retreated into the more abstract, metaphysical realm, where they could remain unknowable. Now, some of us continue to cling to the illogical notion of God because, like Linus van Pelt's blanket, it gives them comfort to think that some cosmic being has their back. Even though this supposedly benevolent god doesn't ever step in to stop man made or natural tragedies... What good is your god, really?

Everything is psychological.  Are you able to function, outside your own mind?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 02, 2019, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
You think we live in the Matrix?

Absolute_Agent_Smith
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:08:19 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
You think we live in the Matrix?

You've opened up a can of worms. Now you've got to explain the difference between the blue and the red pills.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:13:47 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
@Baruch and I would agree that the universes are made of letters and words.

I personally think the universe is made from numbers, but that's just my bias.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:13:47 PM
I personally think the universe is made from numbers, but that's just my bias.

Numbers were created by the human mind. Are you saying then that our minds created the universe?!??
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:25:52 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:08:19 PM
You've opened up a can of worms. Now you've got to explain the difference between the blue and the red pills.

Baruch might say that the red and green are qualia, which can't be explained.  :-P
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:28:31 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:18:13 PM
Numbers were created by the human mind. Are you saying then that our minds created the universe?!??

No, I just agree with Tegmark's view on the primacy of number as the most fundamental reality. I'm not so sure numbers only reside in the human brain, or if the human brain is perceiving something abstract. It's an interesting quandary.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 01:53:13 PM
Much of it sure seems to be made of things that can be expressed in numbers.  And I'm amazed that physicists can reduce things to such simple mathematical expressions.  For example the relationship between matter and energy  E = mc2.  It's almost like some person must have decided that was going to be the relationship, rather than discovered it.  It seems like if it was discovered, it could have never been so conveniently shown.  For all the chaos there appears to be going on in the universe, most of which is directly related to conversions of matter and energy, it's strange that its most fundamental property can be that simple.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
You think we live in the Matrix?
Of sorts, but a benign loving matrix- with infinite interwoven dimensions.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Of sorts, but a benign loving matrix- with infinite interwoven dimensions.
I never thought I would ever hear myself say this, but you need to stop going to the movies.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:20:48 AM
I know what you're talking about, because I've been there. Problem is, it's all psychological; it's in your head. If God were really detectable, we would see signs of his presence in an objective, laboratory setting. But the only way you "detect" God is through your feelings and primed imagination.

People tend to attribute personhood to things that don't have it, like the traffic light that changes just in time to stop you, as if it's just trying to make you mad. Early man gave personhood to animals and aspects of nature, like the sun and the sea. But as those things became less mysterious, the gods retreated into the more abstract, metaphysical realm, where they could remain unknowable. Now, some of us continue to cling to the illogical notion of God because, like Linus van Pelt's blanket, it gives them comfort to think that some cosmic being has their back. Even though this supposedly benevolent god doesn't ever step in to stop man made or natural tragedies... What good is your god, really?
Really all that happened is assumptions changed, and then our experience changed correspondingly.  You assume there's no God, therefore you don't experience it. You assume there is an objective, non-psychological reality, therefore you experience that.  You assume matter is solid, therefore you experience that.  Any physicist will tell you matter isn't solid though. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 02, 2019, 01:02:21 PM
Absolute_Agent_Smith
I love Agent Smith

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:28:31 PM
No, I just agree with Tegmark's view on the primacy of number as the most fundamental reality. I'm not so sure numbers only reside in the human brain, or if the human brain is perceiving something abstract. It's an interesting quandary.

It's a simple observation: no humans, no numbers.

QED
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:48:00 PM
I doubt that the septillionth digit of pi is in anyone's head, but I believe there is a septillionth digit of pi.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 02:53:31 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:48:00 PM
I doubt that the septillionth digit of pi is in anyone's head, but I believe there is a septillionth digit of pi.
Yes by saying that you believe in it means it's in your head. Thanks for proving my point...;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:58:29 PM
You're welcome! :-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:58:29 PM
You're welcome! :-)

The point is: can numbers exist without a human mind? Well maybe dolphins could think in numbers. But then you need the minds of dolphins. It's pretty much along the same line as the alphabet - it takes a mind to create the alphabet. On the same note, math is just a language and why your computer can translate numbers (0's and 1's) into any language on this planet.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 03:13:33 PM
Do the numbers in computers exist in human minds?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 02, 2019, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
I love Agent Smith

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

More interesting character than neo.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 02:14:09 PM
Really all that happened is assumptions changed, and then our experience changed correspondingly.  You assume there's no God, therefore you don't experience it. You assume there is an objective, non-psychological reality, therefore you experience that.  You assume matter is solid, therefore you experience that.  Any physicist will tell you matter isn't solid though. 

What you seem to be getting at, is we all have our confirmation bias.

But here's the thing, while I can't speak for all atheists, I do not assume there is no god. My position is, that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof to convince me there is a god.

My default position is not, that there are no gods. My default position is, that I am unjustified to believe that gods exist.

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 02, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 01:53:13 PMMuch of it sure seems to be made of things that can be expressed in numbers.  And I'm amazed that physicists can reduce things to such simple mathematical expressions.  For example the relationship between matter and energy  E = mc2.  It's almost like some person must have decided that was going to be the relationship, rather than discovered it.
From what I've read, it's not quite that simple...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw

And for reasons that are admittedly a little beyond me, it seems to make sense that mass and energy are related/convertible and it's reasonable that the speed of light is in the mix, since that's a fundamental constraint on the velocity of a particle.

Boiling it down into something that elegantly concise is - don't get me wrong, extremely clever and intelligent - but it is also something could be expected from people's innate desire for simplicity.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 04:01:26 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 03:27:28 PM

My default position is not, that there are no gods. My default position is, that I am unjustified to believe that gods exist.
Most theists will ignore this position.  It appears incomprehensible to most.  They defend the existence of a god with such fervor that a noncommittal position appears to be denial.  If you are not with them, you must be against them.  There can be no neutrality or 3rd alternative.  You must believe there is a god, or that there is no god.  To them this is logical.  I think they comprehend the position of neutrality, but they act in a way that supports the perception that a person who does not believe opposes them with the same limited vision and fervor that equals their own.  This has been explained several times in this thread, but Absolute replies as if it has never been mentioned.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 03:13:33 PM
Do the numbers in computers exist in human minds?

If you open your computer you will find they don't exist there. What you have are switch on and off. Symbolically they are represented by 0's and 1's, by none other than the human mind who programs them. There are no such things as 1, 2, 3... in nature. These are purely symbols invented by the human mind, just like A, B, C...Blow the earth to smithereens and those numbers (and alphabet) cease to exist, unless there are other intelligent life somewhere in some far away galaxy... who can invent them, just like they would invent an alphabet of their own.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 04:24:57 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 02, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
From what I've read, it's not quite that simple...
That's what always bothered me.  It doesn't seem like it would be simple.  I never saw this explained in relation to a triangle as in the video, but what has bothered me is that the "c" in E=mc2 stands for "constant," or at least I was told this once, but in this case, the constant is the speed of light, which is not a constant.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 02, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
And for reasons that are admittedly a little beyond me, it seems to make sense that mass and energy are related/convertible and it's reasonable that the speed of light is in the mix, since that's a fundamental constraint on the velocity of a particle.
I will accept that a relationship between the three exists, not because I know it, but because I have nothing of my own to offer, but can it be as simple as the expression implies?  I keep wondering if there isn't at the very minimum some added part to the expression, something like E=mc2 + 10 / 3.  Actually, I picture something much more complicated, but maybe that's enough to convey my thought.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 02, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
Boiling it down into something that elegantly concise is - don't get me wrong, extremely clever and intelligent - but it is also something could be expected from people's innate desire for simplicity.
Yes.  Unwarranted or not, I'm bothered by the same suspicion. 
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
It seems to me that if aliens can invent and use numbers then they aren't localized only in human minds, but must in some way exist independently of any minds, in order to be accessible to minds anywhere in the universe.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:13:07 PM
Quote from: Simon Moon on August 02, 2019, 03:27:28 PM
What you seem to be getting at, is we all have our confirmation bias.

But here's the thing, while I can't speak for all atheists, I do not assume there is no god. My position is, that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof to convince me there is a god.

My default position is not, that there are no gods. My default position is, that I am unjustified to believe that gods exist.
Yes I get you--I think this is the most rational type of atheism possible.  You choose to accept only the reality conveyed by your intellect.  I view the intellect as a useful tool, but it's not the end all be all.  Reality is much more spontaneous and unpredictable than the intellect could handle on its own.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
It seems to me that if aliens can invent and use numbers then they aren't localized only in human minds, but must in some way exist independently of any minds, in order to be accessible to minds anywhere in the universe.

You can make the same argument with art. I'm sure intelligent aliens would have their own art. But art is subjective - a product of the human mind. The universe doesn't give a shit about art. Same thing with numbers.

As to the notion of localized, I have no idea what that supposed to mean. If you mean by being a monopoly of the human mind, then I'm quite confident that we do not have a monopoly on thinking, having ideas, create concepts. I mean that's the definition of intelligence. So if they are intelligent aliens by the very definition of intelligence, they are capable of doing what we can do - create a number system, an alphabet, art, philosophy, science, and so on....
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 05:26:52 PM
I expect aliens could find the concept of pi, and enumerate it in whatever system of numbers they use. But I seriously doubt they could ever reproduce, say, the Mona Lisa, or any other works of art humans have made.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 05:26:52 PM
I expect aliens could find the concept of pi, and enumerate it in whatever system of numbers they use. But I seriously doubt they could ever reproduce, say, the Mona Lisa, or any other works of art humans have made.

Well pi is a number derived from an observation. It's no different than measuring the acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth - 9.8 m/s2. The universe simply doesn't care about these numbers: I don't think the universe is in a grips of anxiety to make it so that if I fall, I have to accelerate at that rate , or that the ratio of circumference/diameter of a circle is pi. It's convenient for us to do so - it opens the opportunity to do some algebraic manipulations. But those numbers are just so because we invented a number system. Suppose humans had never reached such advancements - we are simple cave people for as long as the earth exist incapable to create a number system or even an alphabet. Then these numbers never come into existence. It's what it is.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 06:34:31 PM
Well, I'm not emotionally wedded to the idea of the primacy of number, it's just a philosophical position.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 06:34:31 PM
Well, I'm not emotionally wedded to the idea of the primacy of number, it's just a philosophical position.

Plato?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 07:01:36 PM
Plato?

Nah, as Vizzini said to the Man in Black, he was a moran...


:-P
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:54:30 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
It seems to me that if aliens can invent and use numbers then they aren't localized only in human minds, but must in some way exist independently of any minds, in order to be accessible to minds anywhere in the universe.

Pythagoras and Plato say so ... ommmm.  They weren't secular, they were cult leaders.  Kind of like the folks in San Diego waiting for the flying saucer.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:55:01 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 03:13:33 PM
Do the numbers in computers exist in human minds?

Not in computer minds ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:08:19 PM
You've opened up a can of worms. Now you've got to explain the difference between the blue and the red pills.

Be a real druggie and take both!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:57:53 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:13:47 PM
I personally think the universe is made from numbers, but that's just my bias.

Dr Max Tegmark I presume?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:00:56 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 01:25:52 PM
Baruch might say that the red and green are qualia, which can't be explained.  :-P

No, red and green are human ideas, and per the peanut crowd, we can ignore them.  More accurately, they are a range of frequency/wavelength of EM spectrum, but nature didn't say that, people do.  EM theory is a more sophisticated model, it isn't "qualia".  Not even Standard Theory QFT is "qualia", again, just a more sophisticated ship in a bottle that you can't sail the seven seas in.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
If you open your computer you will find they don't exist there. What you have are switch on and off. Symbolically they are represented by 0's and 1's, by none other than the human mind who programs them. There are no such things as 1, 2, 3... in nature. These are purely symbols invented by the human mind, just like A, B, C...Blow the earth to smithereens and those numbers (and alphabet) cease to exist, unless there are other intelligent life somewhere in some far away galaxy... who can invent them, just like they would invent an alphabet of their own.

That is exactly what happens in CE3K.  Musical prime numbers.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2019, 04:24:57 PM
That's what always bothered me.  It doesn't seem like it would be simple.  I never saw this explained in relation to a triangle as in the video, but what has bothered me is that the "c" in E=mc2 stands for "constant," or at least I was told this once, but in this case, the constant is the speed of light, which is not a constant.
I will accept that a relationship between the three exists, not because I know it, but because I have nothing of my own to offer, but can it be as simple as the expression implies?  I keep wondering if there isn't at the very minimum some added part to the expression, something like E=mc2 + 10 / 3.  Actually, I picture something much more complicated, but maybe that's enough to convey my thought.
Yes.  Unwarranted or not, I'm bothered by the same suspicion.

Speed of light in vacuum is constant.  It isn't when moving thru matter (or electrons down a wire) ... for photons it makes refraction possible.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 05:26:52 PM
I expect aliens could find the concept of pi, and enumerate it in whatever system of numbers they use. But I seriously doubt they could ever reproduce, say, the Mona Lisa, or any other works of art humans have made.

The value of Pi depends on the number system in use, and the geometry of space the circle is in.  In decimal numbers, and in flat-2-D space, it has a given value.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:07:51 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 06:34:31 PM
Well, I'm not emotionally wedded to the idea of the primacy of number, it's just a philosophical position.

Did Arithmetica (personification of math in the European Middle Ages) look sexy when she took her bridal gown off?  Hubba, hubba!

3 days of target rich environment ... y'all tired me out.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Jagella on August 03, 2019, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 31, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
I would like to better understand why Atheists logically reject the idea of God.

If by "God" you mean a conscious agent with no imperfections, then the God of Christianity and other religions doesn't really fit so much of what we know to be true. The Christian god, for example, is said to have authored the Bible. If that god is perfect, then he wouldn't need a book at all much less a book as imperfect as the Bible. Since a perfect being cannot produce that which is imperfect (unless he does so deliberately), then the God of Christianity and the Bible cannot exist.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: Jagella on August 03, 2019, 09:41:10 AM
If by "God" you mean a conscious agent with no imperfections, then the God of Christianity and other religions doesn't really fit so much of what we know to be true. The Christian god, for example, is said to have authored the Bible. If that god is perfect, then he wouldn't need a book at all much less a book as imperfect as the Bible. Since a perfect being cannot produce that which is imperfect (unless he does so deliberately), then the God of Christianity and the Bible cannot exist.
Thanks for your contribution!  Here's how I resolve that important dilemma logically:

God deliberately created us good but with the power of choice and the capability to choose evil.  When we chose evil we became less than perfect.  But this possibility was already planned for.  God actually wanted less than perfect beings to worship Him.  Why?  Did he need our worship?  No, He enjoys it though, and furthermore He knew, being Omniscient, that we would also enjoy it (immensely).  If you haven't believed in God yet you are like a seed waiting to sprout.  You have all the potential to flourish in the experience of God, it all hinges on your choice.  Shalom.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:23:32 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:57:53 PM
Dr Max Tegmark I presume?
Yeah, I'm sure I've mentioned him a time or two.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:06:38 PM
The value of Pi depends on the number system in use, and the geometry of space the circle is in.  In decimal numbers, and in flat-2-D space, it has a given value.

Well I know that, and you know that, but somebody should tell the aliens!   LOL
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:56:48 AM
Here's how I resolve that important dilemma logically:
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

LOL. ole god also tells us in the babble that he threw a third of the stars to the earth...but hey... no logic or thinking involved there right? After all, those were really really really tiny stars......


LOLOL ...what a twit.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:30:50 PM
LOL. ole god also tells us in the babble that he threw a third of the stars to the earth...but hey... no logic or thinking involved there right? After all, those were really really really tiny stars......


LOLOL ...what a twit.

As an atheist who loves to tear the Bible apart, that passage in Revelation was clearly meant as symbolism. The dragon was Satan. When his tail swipes a third of the stars out of the sky, that symbolizes the angelic rebellion Satan supposedly led. This isn't left to interpretation, like most of Revelation's weird shit, but its meaning is stated pretty clearly. There's still plenty of stupid stuff to choose from in the Bible, though.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
There's still plenty of stupid stuff to choose from in the Bible, though.

Yeah, like a talking donkey! LOL
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 05:03:51 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:56:48 AM
Thanks for your contribution!  Here's how I resolve that important dilemma logically:

God deliberately created us good but with the power of choice and the capability to choose evil.  When we chose evil we became less than perfect.  But this possibility was already planned for.  God actually wanted less than perfect beings to worship Him.  Why?  Did he need our worship?  No, He enjoys it though, and furthermore He knew, being Omniscient, that we would also enjoy it (immensely).  If you haven't believed in God yet you are like a seed waiting to sprout.  You have all the potential to flourish in the experience of God, it all hinges on your choice.  Shalom.

Allow me to offer you a few trains of thought on the subject:

Premisis 1: God created humans to be good.
Premisis 2: 100% of humans are evil.
Conclusion: God failed, and his design was inherently flawed. A 100% failure rate is an absolute failure of a design.

Furthermore, if we're evil because we have free will, does God not have free will? If he does, what are the chances he would be the only one out of a countless number of people to be 100% good? Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to assume God, being a spirit with free will, would be just as evil as the rest of us?

Of course, if God is the one who gets to define what is good, then of course he is going to be the only good one. When you get to literally get away with murder because "I'm God," then calling yourself "good" is rather meaningless, isn't it?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
As an atheist who loves to tear the Bible apart, that passage in Revelation was clearly meant as symbolism. The dragon was Satan. When his tail swipes a third of the stars out of the sky, that symbolizes the angelic rebellion Satan supposedly led. This isn't left to interpretation, like most of Revelation's weird shit, but its meaning is stated pretty clearly. There's still plenty of stupid stuff to choose from in the Bible, though.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
Yeah, like a talking donkey! LOL
I think a talking bush is even more absurd, but I admit, a talking donkey is bound to be funnier.  I'd expect a donkey to make wise cracks.  I mean, he's a donkey after all, so I would think he must have a sense of humor.  A talking bush isn't that funny, especially if he's on fire.  I'd expect him to be hopping around going, "Ooo!  Ouch!  Yowee!"  But no, he's calming giving orders.  I just don't believe it would happen that way.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:16:10 PM
Well, when Balaam's ass was talking, Balaam didn't just say "That'll do, Donkey," like Shreck, instead he beat the poor thing nearly to death.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
As an atheist who loves to tear the Bible apart, that passage in Revelation was clearly meant as symbolism. The dragon was Satan. When his tail swipes a third of the stars out of the sky, that symbolizes the angelic rebellion Satan supposedly led. This isn't left to interpretation, like most of Revelation's weird shit, but its meaning is stated pretty clearly. There's still plenty of stupid stuff to choose from in the Bible, though.

There is a verse in the OT as well and another in NT prior to Rev. if I recall. I always speak of the OT one because I know the Rev is the "dream"
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 05:48:22 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
Yeah, like a talking donkey! LOL
Wait!------Aren't you taking about Shrek!??
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:52:52 PM
Sometimes I say to myself, "that'll do, Don Quixote."
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:16:10 PM
Well, when Balaam's ass was talking, Balaam didn't just say "That'll do, Donkey," like Shreck, instead he beat the poor thing nearly to death.
I'll tell you one thing.  I'll never take orders from a donkey.  They tell you anything, just to see if they can get you to do something stupid.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 07:02:34 PM
Yeah, something stupid, like taking orders from a donkey! LOL
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 03, 2019, 05:03:51 PM
Allow me to offer you a few trains of thought on the subject:

Premisis 1: God created humans to be good.
Premisis 2: 100% of humans are evil.
Conclusion: God failed, and his design was inherently flawed. A 100% failure rate is an absolute failure of a design.

Furthermore, if we're evil because we have free will, does God not have free will? If he does, what are the chances he would be the only one out of a countless number of people to be 100% good? Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to assume God, being a spirit with free will, would be just as evil as the rest of us?

Of course, if God is the one who gets to define what is good, then of course he is going to be the only good one. When you get to literally get away with murder because "I'm God," then calling yourself "good" is rather meaningless, isn't it?

Wow, very penetrating arguments--the best ones yet imo.  Thanks. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Jagella on August 03, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:56:48 AMGod deliberately created us good but with the power of choice and the capability to choose evil.  When we chose evil we became less than perfect.  But this possibility was already planned for.  God actually wanted less than perfect beings to worship Him.  Why?  Did he need our worship?  No, He enjoys it though, and furthermore He knew, being Omniscient, that we would also enjoy it (immensely).  If you haven't believed in God yet you are like a seed waiting to sprout.  You have all the potential to flourish in the experience of God, it all hinges on your choice.  Shalom.

I understand what you're saying, but if God would seek worship to enjoy it, then he lacks something he might enjoy. If he lacks something he wants, then he couldn't be perfect.

If Christians would make their god imperfect, then their theology would be more logical.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:56:48 AMDid he need our worship?  No, He enjoys it though
Careful.  You're on pretty shaky theological ground here.  Desire comes from want.  Does a god want?

Quoteand furthermore He knew, being Omniscient, that we would also enjoy it (immensely).
You know, I played a video game with that sort of psychology earlier.  A tribesman was captured by a cult.  At first, he resists fiercely.  After a time, he obeys the cult while inwardly hating it.  Later - in an extremely disturbing scene - he gives himself over to the cult and seems to derive great enjoyment in such subservience.

At which stage are you?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:45:31 PM
Careful.  You're on pretty shaky theological ground here.  Desire comes from want.  Does a god want?
You know, I played a video game with that sort of psychology earlier.  A tribesman was captured by a cult.  At first, he resists fiercely.  After a time, he obeys the cult while inwardly hating it.  Later - in an extremely disturbing scene - he gives himself over to the cult and seems to derive great enjoyment in such subservience.

At which stage are you?
We're all slaves Hydra009.  Choose your master...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:10:23 PM
Quote from: Jagella on August 03, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
I understand what you're saying, but if God would seek worship to enjoy it, then he lacks something he might enjoy. If he lacks something he wants, then he couldn't be perfect.

If Christians would make their god imperfect, then their theology would be more logical.
If He had everything He desires, He would get bored, as there would be no thrill of anticipation, of development, or suspense.  He would then, being transcendent, decide to create an illusory time continuum which one part of His consciousness would enter, then sit back and savor the show as everything He already had in reality, gradually but inevitably blossoms into the fullness of glory.  Then He would say Himself "That was grand, let us do it again!" Each time there would be variations and He would also play with it a bit in real time as it's unfolding.   He would create infinitely expanding clusters of worlds and universes in which to enjoy this exquisite game.  And so Viola! Here we are...

Logically speaking that is.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:52:52 PM
Sometimes I say to myself, "that'll do, Don Quixote."

Sancho Panza shakes his head sadly, once again.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
Well I know that, and you know that, but somebody should tell the aliens!   LOL

Warp drive is invented by warped species.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:24:21 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:30:50 PM
LOL. ole god also tells us in the babble that he threw a third of the stars to the earth...but hey... no logic or thinking involved there right? After all, those were really really really tiny stars......


LOLOL ...what a twit.

in the Bible, the stars are the angels.  The stars cast down are the fallen angels.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
Yeah, like a talking donkey! LOL

The donkey could see the angel, but Balaam could not.  Who was the ass?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:27:29 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 05:09:48 PM
I think a talking bush is even more absurd, but I admit, a talking donkey is bound to be funnier.  I'd expect a donkey to make wise cracks.  I mean, he's a donkey after all, so I would think he must have a sense of humor.  A talking bush isn't that funny, especially if he's on fire.  I'd expect him to be hopping around going, "Ooo!  Ouch!  Yowee!"  But no, he's calming giving orders.  I just don't believe it would happen that way.

St Elmo's fire.  And as described by Elijah in a similar journey to Sinai ... a still small voice.  Someone standing right next to Moses, might not have seen or heard anything.  The desert gets strange at night.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 05:34:33 PM
There is a verse in the OT as well and another in NT prior to Rev. if I recall. I always speak of the OT one because I know the Rev is the "dream"

Been to Patmos, where Rev was written.  I bet on psychoactive substances.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:31:20 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:10:23 PM
If He had everything He desires, He would get bored, as there would be no thrill of anticipation, of development, or suspense.  He would then, being transcendent, decide to create an illusory time continuum which one part of His consciousness would enter, then sit back and savor the show as everything He already had in reality, gradually but inevitably blossoms into the fullness of glory.  Then He would say Himself "That was grand, let us do it again!" Each time there would be variations and He would also play with it a bit in real time as it's unfolding.   He would create infinitely expanding clusters of worlds and universes in which to enjoy this exquisite game.  And so Viola! Here we are...

Logically speaking that is.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Each human being, animal etc is G-d playing hide-and-seek with G-d.  G-d is the only reality.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:08:59 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:31:20 PM
Each human being, animal etc is G-d playing hide-and-seek with G-d.  G-d is the only reality.
I suppose in that sense atheists are the referees?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:08:59 AM
I suppose in that sense atheists are the referees?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Not disinterested, in the battle between sects.  No, religion or not, we make a poor showing as representatives of a good G-d.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 08:38:21 AM
Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 06:58:23 PM
I'll tell you one thing.  I'll never take orders from a donkey.  They tell you anything, just to see if they can get you to do something stupid.

It's my experience that donkeys are smart, people are stupid. You've been warned...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:10:23 PM
If He had everything He desires, He would get bored, as there would be no thrill of anticipation, of development, or suspense.  He would then, being transcendent, decide to create an illusory time continuum which one part of His consciousness would enter, then sit back and savor the show as everything He already had in reality, gradually but inevitably blossoms into the fullness of glory.  Then He would say Himself "That was grand, let us do it again!" Each time there would be variations and He would also play with it a bit in real time as it's unfolding.   He would create infinitely expanding clusters of worlds and universes in which to enjoy this exquisite game.  And so Viola! Here we are...

Logically speaking that is.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Still peddling your religious horseshit to get gullible people subservient to their masters. The thing is - you are on the wrong forum but too stupid to get it. Are you think that you'll get your 72 virgins anyway without martyring yourself?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:58:03 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 08:44:19 AM
Still peddling your religious horseshit to get gullible people subservient to their masters. The thing is - you are on the wrong forum but too stupid to get it. Are you think that you'll get your 72 virgins anyway without martyring yourself?

Still using insults as a substitute for rational arguments to get your point across I see, @josephpalazzo.  Don't you want 72 virgins in Paradise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:58:03 AM
Still using insults as a substitute for rational arguments to get your point across I see, @josephpalazzo.  Don't you want 72 virgins in Paradise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


I see that you really believe in that shit of 72 virgins in paradise. So my guess is that you also believe that Muhammad really flew on a winged animal to see God. And worse you think that atheists in this forum are going to believe in that shit also. This is so laughable. You made my day...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:54:24 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 08:38:21 AM
It's my experience that donkeys are smart, people are stupid. You've been warned...
Thanks for the reminder.  It never hurts to be skeptical of what any donkey tells you.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 11:00:49 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
I see that you really believe in that shit of 72 virgins in paradise. So my guess is that you also believe that Muhammad really flew on a winged animal to see God. And worse you think that atheists in this forum are going to believe in that shit also. This is so laughable. You made my day...
You're welcome. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:18:48 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 11:00:49 AM
You're welcome. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



You're not.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Sal1981 on August 04, 2019, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:45:31 PM
You know, I played a video game with that sort of psychology earlier.  A tribesman was captured by a cult.  At first, he resists fiercely.  After a time, he obeys the cult while inwardly hating it.  Later - in an extremely disturbing scene - he gives himself over to the cult and seems to derive great enjoyment in such subservience.

At which stage are you?
Reminds me of the movie Transcendence (a movie I find a lot of people misapprehend). In the beginning of the movie, most people realize who the cultists are, but by the end of the movie, by the magic of narrative, most people seem to have switched their position to rally behind the cultist POV. Fascinating movie, IMO.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:17:22 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:24:21 PM
in the Bible, the stars are the angels.  The stars cast down are the fallen angels.

Interpretation. The babble says what it means and means what it says. Thus spake gawd.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 04, 2019, 11:21:40 AM
Reminds me of the movie Transcendence (a movie I find a lot of people misapprehend). In the beginning of the movie, most people realize who the cultists are, but by the end of the movie, by the magic of narrative, most people seem to have switched their position to rally behind the cultist POV. Fascinating movie, IMO.
I've enjoyed that movie too.  It's science fiction, not horror, but it's viscerally chilling.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mike Cl on August 04, 2019, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
I see that you really believe in that shit of 72 virgins in paradise. So my guess is that you also believe that Muhammad really flew on a winged animal to see God. And worse you think that atheists in this forum are going to believe in that shit also. This is so laughable. You made my day...
At least, at times, he is amusing.  Every now and again, a belly laugh.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 04, 2019, 06:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:45:31 PM
Careful.  You're on pretty shaky theological ground here.  Desire comes from want.  Does a god want?
You know, I played a video game with that sort of psychology earlier.  A tribesman was captured by a cult.  At first, he resists fiercely.  After a time, he obeys the cult while inwardly hating it.  Later - in an extremely disturbing scene - he gives himself over to the cult and seems to derive great enjoyment in such subservience.


Reminds me of a movie - A Man Called Horse.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:19:31 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:54:24 AM
Thanks for the reminder.  It never hurts to be skeptical of what any donkey tells you.

Asses .. like politicians.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 04, 2019, 11:21:40 AM
Reminds me of the movie Transcendence (a movie I find a lot of people misapprehend). In the beginning of the movie, most people realize who the cultists are, but by the end of the movie, by the magic of narrative, most people seem to have switched their position to rally behind the cultist POV. Fascinating movie, IMO.

Floride in the water?  MJ legalization?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:21:55 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:17:22 PM
Interpretation. The babble says what it means and means what it says. Thus spake gawd.

Some atheist are very knowledgeable about religion.  But not all ...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 07:31:40 PM
Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2019, 10:54:24 AM
Thanks for the reminder.  It never hurts to be skeptical of what any donkey tells you.

I'm here to serve...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:17:22 PM
Interpretation. The babble says what it means and means what it says. Thus spake gawd.

The  bible literally says what it literally says, except where it doesn't...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 07:34:02 PM
The  bible literally says what it literally says, except where it doesn't...

Interpretation is unavoidable in all human situations.  Literalists are ... maniacs.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 07:39:47 AM

No doubt.  What we believe literally shapes reality.  There is scientific evidence for this in the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton. https://www.brucelipton.com/about
So, you choose your reality.  You are the captain of your ship, it will go where you direct it.  If you don't want God, He will never force Himself into your awareness. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Wikipedia says "Lipton is generally considered someone who believes in pseudoscience and isn't highly regarded by the scientific community.  A 2010 publication asserted that Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics, basically ignored by mainstream science.  Lipton has been criticized and called a “quack” by surgical oncologist David Gorski."

Doesn't seem like a very good source for your arguments...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 05:53:22 AM
Epigenetics is controversial.  On the margins of epigenetics must be very marginal.

That quote is rather necro.  What number is it, if it came from this string?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 05:58:16 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 05:09:25 AM
Wikipedia says "Lipton is generally considered someone who believes in pseudoscience and isn't highly regarded by the scientific community.  A 2010 publication asserted that Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics, basically ignored by mainstream science.  Lipton has been criticized and called a “quack” by surgical oncologist David Gorski."

Doesn't seem like a very good source for your arguments...

For a second I thought you were talking about tea. Wow..."an internationally recognized leader in bridging science and spirituality..." A tall order. Theists must hate him. Spirituality is noble, materialism is undignified. How dare he find a bridge... blasphemy.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 10:57:42 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 05:09:25 AM
Wikipedia says "Lipton is generally considered someone who believes in pseudoscience and isn't highly regarded by the scientific community.  A 2010 publication asserted that Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics, basically ignored by mainstream science.  Lipton has been criticized and called a “quack” by surgical oncologist David Gorski."

Doesn't seem like a very good source for your arguments...
Anyone who challenges the anti-theistic dogma of scientism is treated like this.  No surprise there. 

Deus summus
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aitm on August 13, 2019, 11:06:24 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 07:39:47 AM
He will never force Himself into your awareness. 

Unknowingly stated a perfectly truthful fact.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 03:17:03 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 13, 2019, 11:06:24 AM
Unknowingly stated a perfectly truthful fact.

It's not God we should fear, but the people who believe in God...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 13, 2019, 03:29:47 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 10:57:42 AM
Anyone who challenges the anti-theistic dogma of scientism is treated like this.  No surprise there. 

Deus summus

Anti-thiestic dogma of scientism... Typical ignorant theist. Science has nothing to do with religion, and it has no dogma. If you find your religion in conflict with science, the problem you have is with reality, not science.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 03:17:03 PM
It's not God we should fear, but the people who believe in God...

Yeah, anyone who believes they have God on their side is dangerous as hell.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 03:53:44 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 07:39:47 AMWhat we believe literally shapes reality.
I'm picturing you as a duck.  Feel anything yet?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 05:36:53 PM


Quote from: Blackleaf on August 13, 2019, 03:29:47 PMScience has nothing to do with religion, and it has no dogma.

Steven Jay Gould & Richard Dawkins might agree with that opinion, but religion and science have a long history together.  The first science, astronomy / astrology, was indistinguishable from religion.

Deus summus

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 05:36:53 PM

Steven Jay Gould & Richard Dawkins might agree with that opinion, but religion and science have a long history together.  The first science, astronomy / astrology, was indistinguishable from religion.

Deus summus

I don't care what astrology used to be. In the 21st Century, science is about studying nature. The supernatural is beyond its scope. Most likely because the supernatural doesn't exist, but still. Science makes no claims regarding religion. The only time the two intersect is when religion makes false claims about the real world, such as when Jesus said you couldn't get sick from anything that goes in your mouth, or when a sheep herder made a sheep stare at sticks so its offspring would have stripes, and it actually worked, or when the family tree from Adam to Jesus implies the earth is only a few thousand years old. But that's religion's fault for not sticking to nonfalsifiable claims.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 13, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
I don't care what astrology used to be. In the 21st Century, science is about studying nature. The supernatural is beyond its scope. Most likely because the supernatural doesn't exist, but still. Science makes no claims regarding religion. The only time the two intersect is when religion makes false claims about the real world, such as when Jesus said you couldn't get sick from anything that goes in your mouth, or when a sheep herder made a sheep stare at sticks so its offspring would have stripes, and it actually worked, or when the family tree from Adam to Jesus implies the earth is only a few thousand years old. But that's religion's fault for not sticking to nonfalsifiable claims.
Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." In the 20th century.  Time to throw away the theory of relativity guys, anything pre-Y2K is now discredited as per Unbeliever.

Deus summus
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:25:48 PM
Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

- Albert Einstein
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:57:29 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

- Albert Einstein

And Einstein is still your god, not Feynman?  (rhetorical question).
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:58:40 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 03:53:44 PM
I'm picturing you as a duck.  Feel anything yet?

Thought leads to action.  Action leads to changing reality.  Thought doesn't directly change reality.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 10:57:42 AM
Anyone who challenges the anti-theistic dogma of scientism is treated like this.  No surprise there. 

Deus summus

Two kinds of people.  Idiots and total morons.  If you think someone is smarter than you, then you are an idiot.  If you are the person that someone thinks is smart, and you agree wit them, then you are a total moron.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:01:44 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 03:17:03 PM
It's not God we should fear, but the people who believe in God...

Correct.  And those who believe in Marx, Mussolini etc.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 13, 2019, 03:29:47 PM
Anti-thiestic dogma of scientism... Typical ignorant theist. Science has nothing to do with religion, and it has no dogma. If you find your religion in conflict with science, the problem you have is with reality, not science.

Science is a thing.  Something people do.  And scientism is one of their false views about science.  Anti-theism and theism are also things people do.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:03:51 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 03:30:36 PM
Yeah, anyone who believes they have God on their side is dangerous as hell.

I certainly hope so.  Those who have dead atheists on their side (Rousseau, Marx etc) only have corpses for help.  Whitewalkers perhaps?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:04:53 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 05:36:53 PM

Steven Jay Gould & Richard Dawkins might agree with that opinion, but religion and science have a long history together.  The first science, astronomy / astrology, was indistinguishable from religion.

Deus summus

Athiests think they are free of dogma.  If so, why do they keep quoting atheists of past times?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 02:01:17 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:25:48 PM
Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." In the 20th century.  Time to throw away the theory of relativity guys, anything pre-Y2K is now discredited as per Unbeliever.

Deus summus

You're conflating one scientist's personal opinions with scientific claims. The two are not the same things.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 02:05:29 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:04:53 AM
Athiests think they are free of dogma.  If so, why do they keep quoting atheists of past times?

Because they said something we agreed with, and couldn't put into better words ourselves? Even then, we're choosing our own people to quote. We are not as a group coming together to decide whose opinions to accept into atheistic canon.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 02:22:59 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 02:05:29 AM
Because they said something we agreed with, and couldn't put into better words ourselves? Even then, we're choosing our own people to quote. We are not as a group coming together to decide whose opinions to accept into atheistic canon.

OK.  But what is dogma?  Just past opinions you disagree with?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 14, 2019, 02:32:46 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 02:22:59 AM
OK.  But what is dogma?  Just past opinions you disagree with?

Dogma is a point of view, doctrine or tenet put forth for your acceptance solely on authoritive ground, without adequate reason to believe it.

Statements by the church are dogma, not because we don't agree with them, but because they are the above.
What we believe from scientists tends to be with adequate reason.
And what other atheists like, for example, Hitchens, says, is not put forth on authoritative grounds. I. E. Hitchens' did not make you agree with his vision, nor did he ask you to accept it blindly.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 04:05:39 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:57:29 PM
And Einstein is still your god, not Feynman?  (rhetorical question).
I haven't found anything more powerful as an idea than Feynman's propagator - it's going to be in my next book...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 02:05:29 AM
Because they said something we agreed with, and couldn't put into better words ourselves? Even then, we're choosing our own people to quote. We are not as a group coming together to decide whose opinions to accept into atheistic canon.

Individualism precludes all conspiracies and potential agreements.  Yes, in every human concept, people are right twice a day, just like a broken clock.  Looking at it random, every 3600 broken clocks are broken the same way (60x60).

@Mr.Obvious ... this primarily responds to you as well.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 09:50:58 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 08:26:42 AM
...people are right twice a day, just like a broken clock. 

Aren't you tired of this old cliché...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 02:01:17 AM
You're conflating one scientist's personal opinions with scientific claims. The two are not the same things.
"As Science, Evolution, and Creationism makes clear, the evidence for evolution
can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different
ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008).Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences. p. xiii.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

Does this look like an individual scientist's personal opinion to you?

Deus summus
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:58:55 AM
"As Science, Evolution, and Creationism makes clear, the evidence for evolution
can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different
ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008).Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences. p. xiii.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

Does this look like an individual scientist's personal opinion to you?

Deus summus
Did you read any of that book you listed?  Didn't think so.  I does NOT support creationism in the least.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 11:33:27 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:22:14 AM
Did you read any of that book you listed?  Didn't think so.  I does NOT support creationism in the least.
We weren't debating creationism CI.  Get with the program.

Deus summus
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 11:33:27 AM
We weren't debating creationism CI.  Get with the program.

Deus summus
Yeah, that would be a good idea--look in the mirror when you make that suggestion.  Your listed source does not lend any credence to your 'program' of god nor space spooks.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 11:36:31 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:35:22 AM
Yeah, that would be a good idea--look in the mirror when you make that suggestion.  Your listed source does not lend any credence to your 'program' of god nor space spooks.
I made no such claim.  I think you're confusing this with another debate.

Deus summus

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:58:55 AM
"As Science, Evolution, and Creationism makes clear, the evidence for evolution
can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different
ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008).Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences. p. xiii.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism)

Does this look like an individual scientist's personal opinion to you?

Deus summus


What a crock...

That book clearly states that:"...nonscientific alternatives such as creationism should not be part of the science curriculum in the nation's public school." on page xii.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 09:50:58 AM
Aren't you tired of this old cliché...

I am a sucker for classics ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 12:44:57 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:30:00 PM
I am a sucker for classics ;-)

Lame.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 12:50:14 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:58:55 AM
"As Science, Evolution, and Creationism makes clear, the evidence for evolution
can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different
ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008).Science, Evolution and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences. p. xiii.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

Does this look like an individual scientist's personal opinion to you?

Deus summus

It is an opinion held by some scientists, yes. And it still isn't a scientific claim. You clearly do not understand what science even is.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: trdsf on August 14, 2019, 12:57:55 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:58:03 AM
Still using insults as a substitute for rational arguments to get your point across I see, @josephpalazzo
Still using bullshit as a substitute for actual facts and reproducible data, I see.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 08:58:03 AMDon't you want 72 virgins in Paradise?
Good grief, no! I want a hunky studmuffin who knows what he's doing!

Well, okay, two hunky studmuffins.  And I want them now, not in an alleged afterlife for which there's not the tiniest shred of evidence.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 12:44:57 PM
Lame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rYoRaxgOE0

Suckers?  Those gals aren't lame ... like taking candy from a babe
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:04:53 AM
Athiests think they are free of dogma.  If so, why do they keep quoting atheists of past times?

Because they often put the case pithily?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 01:16:30 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:13:35 PM
Because they often put the case pithily?

Only if they wear pith helmets ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 01:11:10 PM


Suckers?  Those gals aren't lame ... like taking candy from a babe


Duh, the Chordettes are not cliché.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 04:05:39 AM
I haven't found anything more powerful as an idea than Feynman's propagator - it's going to be in my next book...

I googled Feynman propagator, and found out it's not a species of reptile in the bayous of Louisiana!

Can you explain it without so much math? I'm not afraid of the math, but I don't know what all the variables stand for. I see there are other propagators, what's special about Feynman's?

I'm interested in the time evolution of the large-scale structure of the universe. I've been wondering whether time is the element of gravity that's different from the other 3 forces that makes it so unlike them. I wasn't aware that there was a time element in QFT, so I'm looking forward to learning something about it.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 12:50:14 PM
It is an opinion held by some scientists,
Some scientists are of the opinion that science and religion are complementary.  And those particular scientists just happen to be members of the National Academy of Sciences.  And they just happened to issue a formal signed document to this effect.  And it just happens to concur with one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history.  And I just happened to agree with them.  So many coincidences...  Must be a complete random accident Blackleaf. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Deus summus
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:45:23 PM
Quote from: trdsf on August 14, 2019, 12:57:55 PM
Still using bullshit as a substitute for actual facts and reproducible data, I see.
Good grief, no! I want a hunky studmuffin who knows what he's doing!

Well, okay, two hunky studmuffins.  And I want them now, not in an alleged afterlife for which there's not the tiniest shred of evidence.
TMI.  I offered you a mathematical discussion the last time and you weren't interested so don't add hypocrisy to closed-mindedness.

Deus summus

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:46:04 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Some scientists are of the opinion that science and religion are complementary.


But they don't specify any particular religion, just religion in general. A religion that claims certain things happened that didn't happen, or vice versa, that claims as matters of fact things that could not and did not happen, then that religion is not compatible, much less "complementary" with science. The meaning of the word "religion" can be very broad, indeed.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:35:22 PM
I googled Feynman propagator, and found out it's not a species of reptile in the bayous of Louisiana!

Can you explain it without so much math? I'm not afraid of the math, but I don't know what all the variables stand for. I see there are other propagators, what's special about Feynman's?

I'm interested in the time evolution of the large-scale structure of the universe. I've been wondering whether time is the element of gravity that's different from the other 3 forces that makes it so unlike them. I wasn't aware that there was a time element in QFT, so I'm looking forward to learning something about it.

Joe might be the only one who can.  I studied QFT about 7 years ago, and didn't get much out of it ;-(
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:46:04 PM

But they don't specify any particular religion, just religion in general. A religion that claims certain things happened that didn't happen, or vice versa, that claims as matters of fact things that could not and did not happen, then that religion is not compatible, much less "complementary" with science. The meaning of the word "religion" can be very broad, indeed.
Blah blah blah.  How's that for broadness?

Deus summus

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 02:22:41 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 02:10:04 PM
Blah blah blah.  How's that for broadness?

Deus summus
that is exactly what you have been giving this board from your first post.  If you are anything, it is blah, blah, blah...........
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 03:30:23 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 01:35:22 PM


Can you explain it without so much math? I'm not afraid of the math, but I don't know what all the variables stand for. I see there are other propagators, what's special about Feynman's?


Not to go into great details, QM is a probability theory. You express a quantum state with the wave function. Easy example: the z-component of spin states, with two states - up and down. If you write down the wave function correctly, it should give you 50% up, 50% down. This happens when you pass a beam of electrons into a magnetic field. Initially, the spin of each electron is random. After measurement, you get the 50-50 observation. Less easy case: passing electrons through a double-slit. These will land on a screen, giving you a pattern. Here position is not discrete as in the case above, but continuous. So your wave function, a function of position, nevertheless will give you the probability of where the electron will land on the screen - a distribution you can find in any google search.


In QFT, there are major changes: the wave function gives way to a field operator. But how we now calculate the probability undergoes an even greater change. This is done through a propagator: you look at the state of a particle say at point x, which will propagate to point y. In words, it's easy said, mathematically, it's very involved. You end up with a particle whose mass is offshell- another technical term. Basically, a free particle's mass is onshell - it obeys Einstein's energy equation, the one that gives E=mc2, for a free particle. So we started with a free particle at a point x, it propagates to point y, but in that interval, it doesn't act like a free particle. This is where all the interesting things in QFT happens. I'm not going into more details as it would require me to go into Lorentz Invariance, unitary, representation theory, gauge theory, renormalization, and so on. And a lot of Feynman diagrams...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 04:10:08 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Some scientists are of the opinion that science and religion are complementary.  And those particular scientists just happen to be members of the National Academy of Sciences.  And they just happened to issue a formal signed document to this effect.  And it just happens to concur with one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history.  And I just happened to agree with them.  So many coincidences...  Must be a complete random accident Blackleaf. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Deus summus

Some scientists think science and religion are compatible, or at least not in conflict. And? There are scientists who think they are opposed to one another too. How does this help your case? You seem to be arguing against your own point right now. You're making no sense. You were pushing the idea that science is anti-religion. I said they are unrelated to each other, which is what the person you quoted also said. Is your attention span so low, you haven't even noticed you switched positions?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 04:10:08 PM
Some scientists think science and religion are compatible, or at least not in conflict. And? There are scientists who think they are opposed to one another too. How does this help your case? You seem to be arguing against your own point right now. You're making no sense. You were pushing the idea that science is anti-religion. I said they are unrelated to each other, which is what the person you quoted also said. Is your attention span so low, you haven't even noticed you switched positions?

To be honest, I don't think many scientists really think religion and science are "Non-overlapping magisteria" as Gould put it. I think they're just trying to get religious nuts in politics and the public off their backs in their particular domain to leave room to explore.

Religions make definite (and might I add incompatible) statements about the origins and structure of the world and life. Many of these come into direct conflict with science. Unless we want to say such and such scientific topic are off limits, it's hard to see how they won't conflict.

I'm not talking about the Renaissance either. Stephen Hawking claims Pope John Paul II told physicists they should not explore the origins of the universe because that is God's domain. Fundamentalists in the US would be tickled pink if they had the power to imprison anyone teaching evolution.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
To be honest, I don't think many scientists really think religion and science are "Non-overlapping magisteria" as Gould put it. I think they're just trying to get religious nuts in politics and the public off their backs in their particular domain to leave room to explore.

Religions make definite (and might I add incompatible) statements about the origins and structure of the world and life. Many of these come into direct conflict with science. Unless we want to say such and such scientific topic are off limits, it's hard to see how they won't conflict.

I'm not talking about the Renaissance either. Stephen Hawking claims Pope John Paul II told physicists they should not explore the origins of the universe because that is God's domain. Fundamentalists in the US would be tickled pink if they had the power to imprison anyone teaching evolution.

Well, yeah. I said earlier that the only time science and religion clash is when religion makes falsifiable claims. In those cases, it is not science trying to discredit religion (as if the two are rival faiths), but religion conflicting with the real world. Even in cases where scientific theories contradict religious myths, such as with evolution, there are religious people who accept the science and just claim that their religious text isn't being literal. Some Christians do not see the story of Adam and Eve as a historical event, for instance. When it comes to the core of what makes the religion, such as the existence of gods or the afterlife, science has no opinions.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 12:04:53 AM
Athiests think they are free of dogma.  If so, why do they keep quoting atheists of past times?
Reasons to dislike atheists

*shuffles deck*

They quote people they agree with
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Simon Moon on August 14, 2019, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Some scientists are of the opinion that science and religion are complementary.  And those particular scientists just happen to be members of the National Academy of Sciences.  And they just happened to issue a formal signed document to this effect.  And it just happens to concur with one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history.  And I just happened to agree with them.  So many coincidences...  Must be a complete random accident Blackleaf. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Deus summus



I am as close to absolutely certain as possible, that if you asked any of those signers of the formal doc, if: there was a worldwide flood, Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged creature, that angels visit people in caves, that people can resurrect after 3 days, Jinn exist, that we're all descended from 2 original man and woman, Muhammad split the moon in 2,  Noah was 950 years old, stars are missiles for Allah to throw at devils, etc, etc, etc, and all the other scientific absurdities in the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, etc, they would not be so quick to say that science and religion are compatible.

Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 05:44:18 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 14, 2019, 05:27:51 PM
Well, yeah. I said earlier that the only time science and religion clash is when religion makes falsifiable claims. In those cases, it is not science trying to discredit religion (as if the two are rival faiths), but religion conflicting with the real world. Even in cases where scientific theories contradict religious myths, such as with evolution, there are religious people who accept the science and just claim that their religious text isn't being literal. Some Christians do not see the story of Adam and Eve as a historical event, for instance. When it comes to the core of what makes the religion, such as the existence of gods or the afterlife, science has no opinions.

I think this lets religion off the hook too easily. It's making a distinction between an interventionist god and a god of the gaps. It's one thing to say that science is or should be silent on the god of the gaps, but it's quite another thing to say why it is or should be silent.

The god of the gaps is a hypothesis. Any hypothesis that has to be highly fine tuned and ad hoc rescued over and over again deserves no serious consideration from science. Why exclude this hypothesis?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 06:02:48 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Some scientists are of the opinion that science and religion are complementary.  And those particular scientists just happen to be members of the National Academy of Sciences.
Interesting.  Did you know that scientists as a whole are much less likely to be theists than the general public?  (The opposite is true of prison)

(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png)

Why do you suppose that is?

QuoteAnd they just happened to issue a formal signed document to this effect.
They basically do stuff like that to placate people like you.  Knowledge is power, but the power of mobs of idiots is unrivaled.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Minimalist on August 14, 2019, 06:17:16 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/84/5a/76/845a76dfb165403753a87277d794093b.jpg)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 06:02:48 PM
Interesting.  Did you know that scientists as a whole are much less likely to be theists than the general public?  (The opposite is true of prison)

<image snipped>

Why do you suppose that is?
They basically do stuff like that to placate people like you.  Knowledge is power, but the power of mobs of idiots is unrivaled.

It would be interesting to know how they determined who is a scientist and who isn't for the purposes of that survey. For example, I've seen "scientists" opposing evolution who are pharmacists. One of my fundie relations had me read a book that described a guy with a PhD in mechanical engineering and no scientific experience as a scientist.

In the fundie-land scientist lists, for every Michael Behe on the list, there's some rando with a PhD who's a "scientist" because, y'know, PhD.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: trdsf on August 14, 2019, 06:54:10 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:45:23 PM
TMI.  I offered you a mathematical discussion the last time and you weren't interested so don't add hypocrisy to closed-mindedness.
Bullshit.  You ran like hell from the obvious contradiction in your position.  Coward.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:58:17 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 05:44:18 PM
I think this lets religion off the hook too easily. It's making a distinction between an interventionist god and a god of the gaps. It's one thing to say that science is or should be silent on the god of the gaps, but it's quite another thing to say why it is or should be silent.

The god of the gaps is a hypothesis. Any hypothesis that has to be highly fine tuned and ad hoc rescued over and over again deserves no serious consideration from science. Why exclude this hypothesis?

My personal experience says ... "god of the gaps" is atheist apologetics.  It doesn't match my spiritual experience.  But it does work for moderate atheists.

Again, atheists put literalist fish in a barrel and shoot them.  Have you no compassion?  And no, not the most brilliant argument.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 06:02:48 PM
Interesting.  Did you know that scientists as a whole are much less likely to be theists than the general public?  (The opposite is true of prison)

(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png)

Why do you suppose that is?
They basically do stuff like that to placate people like you.  Knowledge is power, but the power of mobs of idiots is unrivaled.

Correct.  And more Dems smoke pot.  But you won't catch me smoking it.  Used to be most doctors recommended menthol cigarettes.  Experts are .. of limited utility except when you really need one.

In the US, the highest income group is Hindus.  Jews are only second highest.  So as crass materialists that you are, y'all should convert to Hinduism or Judaism ;-))

Did you realize that you agreed with me, that all democracy should be abolished?  Mob rule.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:02:57 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:48:32 PM
It would be interesting to know how they determined who is a scientist and who isn't for the purposes of that survey. For example, I've seen "scientists" opposing evolution who are pharmacists. One of my fundie relations had me read a book that described a guy with a PhD in mechanical engineering and no scientific experience as a scientist.

In the fundie-land scientist lists, for every Michael Behe on the list, there's some rando with a PhD who's a "scientist" because, y'know, PhD.

Religious categories are equally iffy.  In Japan almost everyone has two, Shinto and Buddhism.  Shinto is for life, Buddhism only for blessing new cars (death traps) and for funerals.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:58:17 PM
  It doesn't match my spiritual experience. 

But your brain lost a few wheels, how's that spiritual?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:28:49 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:08:56 PM
But your brain lost a few wheels, how's that spiritual?

Blind men consider the Sun to be a myth.  You are probably the most blind person here.  Not that I hold any prejudices toward the handicapped.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: trdsf on August 14, 2019, 07:33:55 PM
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 01:45:23 PM
TMI.
I consider 72 virgins to be TMI.  That's just plain creepy, and I'm bothered you think that's a good thing.

And what kind of hypocrite do you have to be to think that your (asserted but entirely unproven) afterlife should be all about 72 virgins, especially considering Islamic attitudes towards sex in THIS life, which is the only one we actually know we have?

If (there isn't, but for the sake of argument if) there's any sort of afterlife, I want it to be cruising around the universe unfettered by physical laws so I can check on planets in different galaxies, poke my head inside black holes to see what's going on in there, spend whatever time there is learning more about what actually is.

And all you can think about is 72 virgins.  Pathetic.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:28:49 PM
Blind men consider the Sun to be a myth.  .

Blind men would feel the sun, and besides nobody looks at the sun. So tell me more about your "spiritual" experience. Did god speak to you??
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:36:59 PM
Blind men would feel the sun, and besides nobody looks at the sun. So tell me more about your "spiritual" experience. Did god speak to you??

There you go again  - Ronald Reagan.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:45:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:39:28 PM
There you go again  - Ronald Reagan.


So I have to conclude that your spiritual experience is just bullshit...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:45:58 PM

So I have to conclude that your spiritual experience is just bullshit...

I came to doubt you totally last time around.  Please don't make me have flashbacks!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 08:09:25 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:56:07 PM
I came to doubt you totally last time around.  Please don't make me have flashbacks!


Your silence on spiritual experience speaks for itself...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Minimalist on August 14, 2019, 08:41:22 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 07:45:58 PM

So I have to conclude that your spiritual experience is just bullshit...


All spiritual experiences are bullshit.  Mere brain farts.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 10:27:36 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:48:32 PM
It would be interesting to know how they determined who is a scientist and who isn't for the purposes of that survey. For example, I've seen "scientists" opposing evolution who are pharmacists. One of my fundie relations had me read a book that described a guy with a PhD in mechanical engineering and no scientific experience as a scientist.
Random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

Methodology at the bottom of the linked page.  The religion questions are in Section 4.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 03:00:59 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 09:50:58 AM
Aren't you tired of this old cliché...

Baruch often expresses himself in cliché.  When one posts as often as he does, originality is hard to come by.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 03:19:16 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 03:00:59 AM
Baruch often expresses himself in cliché.  When one posts as often as he does, originality is hard to come by.

How I do photography.  Take 20 photos, one of them is bound to be brilliant.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 15, 2019, 03:25:00 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 03:19:16 AM
How I do photography.  Take 20 photos, one of them is bound to be brilliant.

So you are one of the monkeys aiming for Shakespeare?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 03:43:24 AM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 15, 2019, 03:25:00 AM
So you are one of the monkeys aiming for Shakespeare?

Too many callouses.  But I am trying to recreate e e cummings, since I can skip capital letters that way.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 05:53:40 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 03:43:24 AM
Too many callouses.  But I am trying to recreate e e cummings, since I can skip capital letters that way.

I REALLY NEVER LIKED THAT STYLE.  NICE GIMMICK THOUGH.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 03:19:16 AM
How I do photography.  Take 20 photos, one of them is bound to be brilliant.


Uh...not necessarily, they could all be shit.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:12:13 PM

Uh...not necessarily, they could all be shit.

Well, you can always get lucky.  But yeah, if you mess up 19 what are the odds on the 20th?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:24:04 PM
Well, if you do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome...hmm...there should be a word for that...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:33:39 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:24:04 PM
Well, if you do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome...hmm...there should be a word for that...

Insanity.  Is this a crossover to the word game?  ;)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:55:24 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:33:39 PM
Insanity. 


Oh, yeah, that's the ticket!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:40:05 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:12:13 PM

Uh...not necessarily, they could all be shit.

Only when I take selfies of my compost pile ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:40:26 PM
Quote from: Minimalist on August 14, 2019, 08:41:22 PM

All spiritual experiences are bullshit.  Mere brain farts.

Is that you, Dr Flatulent?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:41:16 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 08:09:25 PM

Your silence on spiritual experience speaks for itself...

I wouldn't bother on that topic with you.  But not everyone is so obtuse.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 07:44:08 PM
Yeah, some people are more isosceles.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:44:47 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 10:27:36 PM
Random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

Methodology at the bottom of the linked page.  The religion questions are in Section 4.

Belief among scientists, still at 33%.

The public think of science as high tech plus free lunch.  They don't have a useful view of it.  High tech is particularly useful for weapons.  And a free lunch by technology is the same as any free lunch ... BS.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:45:42 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:33:39 PM
Insanity.  Is this a crossover to the word game?  ;)

Exactly.  Breathing.  Completely insane production of CO2.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:46:37 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:20:26 PM
Well, you can always get lucky.  But yeah, if you mess up 19 what are the odds on the 20th?

Talk to Hakurei.  Your grasp of statistics is lacking.  Typical government drone.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 07:48:17 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:41:16 PM
I wouldn't bother on that topic with you.  But not everyone is so obtuse.

I'm less than 900 but more than 1800
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 07:48:17 PM
I'm less than 900 but more than 1800

I take your comments as hyperbolic  ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:49:41 PM
I take your comments as hyperbolic  ;-)

I have an aversion for negative curvature.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 08:01:43 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 07:55:25 PM
I have an aversion for negative curvature.

I think you have aversion to negative interest too, which is good.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 08:03:49 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 08:01:43 PM
I think you have aversion to negative interest too, which is good.

Negative interest is to stimulate spending, good for the economy, but I don't want Trump to win...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 08:03:49 PM
Negative interest is to stimulate spending, good for the economy, but I don't want Trump to win...

So utopia is -100% interest?  Sounds good for the banks ;-(
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 08:17:43 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 12:49:07 AM
So utopia is -100% interest?  Sounds good for the banks ;-(

Wrong concept: negative interest means more spending from consumers, less money in banks.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Unbeliever on August 16, 2019, 01:35:56 PM
I always thought negative interest was what women looked at me with.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 16, 2019, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:44:47 PM
Belief among scientists, still at 33%.

Meh... "Belief" is too broad, too sweeping. As my fiancee, my wife claimed that she believed in God. I asked her to describe God. She described a vague sense of what some have called "belief in belief". When I told her bluntly, "That's not God", she agreed. She just never thought about it much and didn't want to offend people.

You see this happening worldwide. Although many people claim to be an adherent of a region, when pressed for details on what they actually believe the specifics would have gotten them stoned to death or put on the rack when religion had real power.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 16, 2019, 01:35:56 PM
I always thought negative interest was what women looked at me with.
And you had positive interest in those women... positive attracts negative...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 08:17:43 AM
Wrong concept: negative interest means more spending from consumers, less money in banks.

You just flunked economics for the second time (since when we first locked horns).  But I promise not to tell anyone.

People could choose to take all their money out of the banks, and spend it all at once, to avoid the negative interest.  But that isn't healthy consumerism.

If they leave their money in the bank under those conditions, the consumer accounts drop to zero, but the bank's own balance sheet looks great.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 16, 2019, 03:22:33 PM
Meh... "Belief" is too broad, too sweeping. As my fiancee, my wife claimed that she believed in God. I asked her to describe God. She described a vague sense of what some have called "belief in belief". When I told her bluntly, "That's not God", she agreed. She just never thought about it much and didn't want to offend people.

You see this happening worldwide. Although many people claim to be an adherent of a region, when pressed for details on what they actually believe the specifics would have gotten them stoned to death or put on the rack when religion had real power.

Religion is a mile wide and an inch deep.  Mostly because the unexamined life is the only one worth living, unless one is a geek.  Your notion of progress is .. fanciful.  Optimism only requires a brain chemical imbalance, same as pessimism.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 16, 2019, 05:07:37 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:03:20 PM
Religion is a mile wide and an inch deep.  Mostly because the unexamined life is the only one worth living, unless one is a geek.  Your notion of progress is .. fanciful.  Optimism only requires a brain chemical imbalance, same as pessimism.

Well, I do consider it progress that the odds I'll be stoned to death are slim. Baby steps. Of course others are free to disagree and argue that my being stoned to death represents progress.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: aileron on August 16, 2019, 05:07:37 PM
Well, I do consider it progress that the odds I'll be stoned to death are slim. Baby steps. Of course others are free to disagree and argue that my being stoned to death represents progress.

Definitely pragmatic.  Small steps are the only one's available.  For real progress, if it ever happened, I will be long dead.  Today, we have many more ways to get stoned.  Is that progress?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:21:13 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 08:09:25 PM

Your silence on spiritual experience speaks for itself...

Not silent.  I have discussed this before, but don't have the time or inclination to repeat.  Please review all 34,000+ posts I have made, mix them all together, and apply the secret decoder ring from the Kracker Jack's box.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:01:46 PM
People could choose to take all their money out of the banks, and spend it all at once, to avoid the negative interest. 
Stop repeating what I wrote. It's plagiarism.
QuoteBut that isn't healthy consumerism.
Unhealthy to you, not to everybody. Think again.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:21:13 PM
Not silent.  I have discussed this before, but don't have the time or inclination to repeat.  Please review all 34,000+ posts I have made, mix them all together, and apply the secret decoder ring from the Kracker Jack's box.

Blah, blah, blah...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:23:42 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
Stop repeating what I wrote. It's plagiarism.Unhealthy to you, not to everybody. Think again.

A double failure.  Missed your nap?  I missed mine, I am only now getting to my cold coffee from breakfast ;-(
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: aileron on August 16, 2019, 05:26:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:16:50 PMToday, we have many more ways to get stoned.  Is that progress?

Progress of a sort, yes. Throwing a fairly hefty stone hits with about 1 Joule. Your friendly, neighborhood Polaris warhead hits with about 836,800,000,000,000 Joules. We haven't become nicer or less violent as a species, but we've gotten more circumspect about using all those Joules when we know they'll be returned in kind. Mutual Assured Destruction may not be real progress, but it's the best we have for now.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:28:54 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:23:42 PM
A double failure.

ME: negative interest means more spending from consumers, less money in banks.
YOU: People could choose to take all their money out of the banks, and spend it all at once, to avoid the negative interest.

SAME
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:28:54 PM
ME: negative interest means more spending from consumers, less money in banks.
YOU: People could choose to take all their money out of the banks, and spend it all at once, to avoid the negative interest.

SAME

A first, we actually understand each other.  We differ on why it is bad idea to create a bank run ;-((
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 06:21:19 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
A first, we actually understand each other.  We differ on why it is bad idea to create a bank run ;-((

You suffer but the rest benefit... SPOCK "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 08:04:01 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 06:21:19 PM
You suffer but the rest benefit... SPOCK "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"

Perfect communism.  Is that you, Lenin?

Completed my nap.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 08:04:01 PM
Perfect communism.  Is that you, Lenin?

Completed my nap.

Duh, there is no communism on Vulcan.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 08:39:21 AM
Duh, there is no communism on Vulcan.

They are a matriarchy under T'Pao
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 12:41:53 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:23:17 AM
They are a matriarchy under T'Pao

How would you know she live(d?) in the 24th century...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:52:06 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 12:41:53 PM
How would you know she live(d?) in the 24th century...

The same way you do, but I have two, count them, two crystal balls ...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 09:12:45 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:52:06 PM
The same way you do, but I have two, count them, two crystal balls ...

They were on special at Walmart?
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 11:01:59 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 09:12:45 AM
They were on special at Walmart?

Nope.  Inherited them from my fortune reading grandmother.  Our women have balls.  This Is Sparta!
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 11:01:59 AM
Nope.  Inherited them from my fortune reading grandmother.  Our women have balls.  This Is Sparta!

Oh well, that debunks the theory that you're an extra-terrestrial.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 12:04:56 PM
Oh well, that debunks the theory that you're an extra-terrestrial.

Maybe double X chromosome in addition to Y chromosome.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 02:01:05 PM
Maybe double X chromosome in addition to Y chromosome.

We always knew you were a freak...
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 02:21:00 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:18:37 PM
We always knew you were a freak...

I'm not talking.  Dumb.  As a defective person, in Identity politics, I outrank you.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 02:21:00 PM
I'm not talking.  Dumb.  As a defective person, in Identity politics, I outrank you.

And you think you deserve a medal, pppppffffffffffffffttttttttttttt......
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 02:35:34 PM
And you think you deserve a medal, pppppffffffffffffffttttttttttttt......

In modern liberalism, everyone gets a red star for participating.  Your students should have put you under trial by the Red Guard, because you don't consider everyone equal ;-)  And trigger them with homework and tests.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 05:19:18 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 08:22:56 PM
In modern liberalism, everyone gets a red star for participating.  Your students should have put you under trial by the Red Guard, because you don't consider everyone equal ;-)  And trigger them with homework and tests.


We are only equal under the law. In every other aspects in life, we are not equal.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 09:52:17 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 05:19:18 AM

We are only equal under the law. In every other aspects in life, we are not equal.

Shocked!  You aren't a Millennial ;-)
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2019, 09:52:17 AM
Shocked!  You aren't a Millennial ;-)

The Millennials get a shock when they leave home and see the world not as mama and papa had designed for them.
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 03:05:32 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 19, 2019, 05:19:18 AM

We are only equal under the law. In every other aspects in life, we are not equal.

We are equal from birth.  After that, all bets are off. 
Title: Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
Post by: Baruch on August 20, 2019, 06:03:28 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 03:05:32 AM
We are equal from birth.  After that, all bets are off.

We are equal a a fertilized single cell.  After that, all bets are off (baring genetic errors).  The final configuration of sex is in gestation, the Y-Chromosome simply triggers testosterone in the mother, but sometimes that doesn't work as planned.  From the point of the first cell division, then more variation creeps in, with gender difference already in new borns.