Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 11909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #145 on: October 05, 2011, 11:04:11 AM »
I can agree to call everything objective. My intent was to say that there is absolute SDEP and yet, there are multiple conclusions, unfounded fears, or totally incorrect conclusions drawn in the face of absolute data. This "proves" that there are factors other than SDEP to take into account when humans are making decisions and creating beliefs.

   What it proves is that you are not taking into account all the data. One very important piece of data is that people are irrational, and thus do not take into account all the data. Alternatively, an individual's past experience can give a different conclusion based on the same data.

   Two doctors, trained equally and with the same specialty can give two different diagnoses because each has seen similar symptoms turn out to be different. Or they jumped to a conclusion before the data was finished being listed out (and thus is being irrational). And yes, two different diseases can result in similar symptoms. The body only has so many ways to say "Something is wrong with me".

   Relationships, aside from brain chemistry, is itself a great source of irrational behavior. Some of it isn't too bad - but when you have a wife-beater, and said wife sticks by him; that is the definition of irrational. Or fear. (Or both.)

   Speaking of fear- also not a rational response. Fear is an evolutionarily selected trait that makes automatic responses favored to perceived danger. People, for various reasons, fear one thing over another due to perceived, if not actual danger.. We are not talking "phobias", of course - those are a bit more extreme. My two examples, although I will admit they are anecdotal, are not far off. We all (probably) have been exposed to cars from a very young age. Familiarity helps us cope with it. When it comes to flying? How often do you fly? It probably isn't often, if at all. It probably isn't often for most people.
Quote from: About.com
Acclimation[1]

Repeated exposure to similar situations leads to familiarity. This greatly reduces both the fear response and the resulting elation, leading adrenaline junkies to seek out ever new and bigger thrills. It also forms the basis of some phobia treatments, which depend on slowly minimizing the fear response by making it feel familiar.
 1. http://phobias.about.com/od/introductiontophobias/a/psychologyfear.htm
   That was, of course, just a quick search - there are many more professional studies (locked behind a "subscribe" button  :() just waiting to be looked through. As for control: again, I'll anecdote it, but which is less risky to jump out of when there's an impending accident? And yes, backseaters can reach the wheel unless you're in an over-sized SUV. In which case only the middle-seaters can reach the wheel. Plus, people just don't go looking for these statistics, so they don't know it's relatively safer to fly (nor the margin by which it is).

   There are other factors. There are many reason behind any fear, but "people are irrational" and "people don't have all the information" are both pretty common.

Quote
I'm trying to prove a few of the ways objective data can either be misinterpreted, misused, ignored, and inconclusive.

   No one has ever said it can't. So what? You defeat incorrect data with correct data, more data, better data, and more solid logic to draw the conclusions. Point is, even if the data is wrong, misinterpretted, misused, or inconclusive, it's still data that's being used. If it's being ignored, then it is irrational.

Quote
I can give you every bit of data you would ever think of to ask for and you could still be wrong. If your requirement of every conversation is to contain SDEP, you are essentially saying that the SDEP is undeniable and would lead you to be able to figure out who won. What if I picked the games? How much money would you be willing to bet? Would you even be able to postulate a guess at your correct guess percentage?


   You saw the words "Margin of error", right? The more data someone has (even trivial information can make a difference) the more accurate the prediction. Now, admittedly, not being a major sports person "every question I could think to ask" wouldn't be particularly informative - but the more data we had, the more money I'd be willing to bet.
   Besides, how is it determined if we want to keep a player, trade him, or just get rid of him entirely? His stats, the situations he's been in, and (to the irrational) how he acts off the field. These are all points of data.
   How do we decide if we want to keep a coach? Games won, Team cohesion, other things a sportsy person would know better... all points of data. Data, data, data. I listen to sport-talk radio all the time (NOT by choice) and what do they talk about? Data! Numbers! How much of an asshole Player X is being! Your S, D, and E are well-represented! (P, not so much, but it is a call-in show...)

Quote
But were they? According to all of the tests, there were no mechanical failures.

   Uh, yes... the smear campaign which disagreed with the actual mechanical tests were giving out false data. So the public was being given false data. And another important piece of information you overlook: The people presenting the smear were more effective.

Quote
If your requirement of every conversation is to contain SDEP, you are essentially saying that the SDEP is undeniable

   I never said data is undeniable. But an important conversation must include it. If it is wrong, it will be defeated by reality. Usable information is confirmable. Correct data is reproducible. Good logic is consistent[2]. A good proof will not be contradicted by any of those- and will in fact be supported by them.
 2. Among other things.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #146 on: October 05, 2011, 04:14:44 PM »

You seem to be very defensive about the ego checks. I don't know how you can say that I'm letting ego get in my way. I haven't said anything to you ego-related. I understand if you say that I'm an idiot (ok you have) or something like that if I don't agree with what you're writing, but when I disagree, it's not because of ego. I call you out on your ego-trip because you're constantly berating me for something you don't understand. I know it makes you feel better or superior to do so.

I pretty much pointed out step-by-step your various uses of ego. So this essentially amounts to an outright lie on your part (nothing unexpected). This is also a combination of a Strawman and an Ad Hominem. I did not at any point say that you were an idiot because I disagreed with you. Admittedly you do certainly seem to be an idiot, but there are very valid reasons to reach such a conclusion. But at no point did I say that it was because I disargeed with you. As for your claims of "ego-trip" it's still an unsubstantiated opinion that you have done nothing to back up. Whereas I presented quite a bit of evidence to show your ego in action (which you apparenly had no defence against). Of course since you just make things up as you go along this is to be expected.

One other note of ego that we can clearley see in your writing as well is that you continue to accuse me of not understanding, as opposed to even considering the possiblity that (as I mentioned before) I do understand and just  don't agree. You're carrying the implication in this that my difference of opinion is simply a matter of a failure of understanding on my part, and that if I did understand I would agree with you. Nothing ego-driven about that is there?

And for the record, no it does make me feel superior. In the same way that I would not feel superior if I beat on an invalid.

For Alzael:

Discussion on "other forms of proof".
Your stance - statistics, data, evidence, and proof are always necessary when discussing ANYTHING, less their response be "pointless and stupid".

No, this is not what I said. You're creating a Strawman (nothing new) and a very stupid one.

What I said was that those things are needed to differentiate fantasy from reality. Without these, anything you say is utterly subjective (ie. effectively made-up). Your responses are largely pointless and stupid because they serve no point at furthering the conversation. They are only attempts at you to further dodge what is being said.


My response - I'd agree if we were talking about building a bridge, making a jet engine, constructing a house, making a case against a murderer, and a long list of other things. But, this is not the case for ALL discussions.

Again you're responding to a made-up Strawman.

What if there are answers that lie in the gray area that you don't allow due to your rigid classifications?

Then how do you know what those answers are? If you're changing the classifications as you want then anything can answer anything. So you never have any actual answers. The grey area is grey because it's truth is uncertain. Once you know if it's true or not, it stops being grey. That's the point of science and evidence. To examine the grey and find out whether it belongs in the black or the white so that we know what it is. Otherwise the grey is useless.

You're trying to criticize a method that you don't even understand the basics of. Otherwise you would have known better than to even say this

An answer in the "grey area" is an answer that is only an answer in so far as it's the one that you want to accept. Where is the value in an answer that can't actually answer the question?

Well for one, it makes it a lot easier for YOU to be correct, and thus, I concede that point.

No, it makes it POSSIBLE for me to be correct,as opposed to your way which can never give a correct answer. Again, how do you differentiate truth from fantasy? That's the thing with grey areas, they're neither true nor false, otherwise they wouldn't be grey areas. That's why we try to figure out whether they belong on one side or the other. The alternative is to never know whether they're true or not.

Again, not only are you misrepresenting the point, you don't even grasp it. Or alternatively, you do understand it and this is just you being dishonest by attempting to misrepresent it.

You need statistics, data, evidence, and proof to continue. I've already said that I won't be able to offer those things in the way that you'd like, so there you go.

Then the question still remains, Why should anyone care?

But, even after conceding that point and trying to move on, you revert back to square one, call me names, don't continue, and ask why I'm posting on this message board. That's why you need an ego check.

You have yet to even respond to the points. All you do is keep bringing up "ego". Again using it purely as a dismissive without any support for the statement. And why you are posting on the message board was a very valid question (which is another thing that you refuse to answer).


And, the reason that some theists disregard statistics, data, evidence and proof is that there are other ways to interpret statistics, data, evidence, and "proof". Here are some examples.

Oh this should be stunning.......

Anxiety when flying on Airplanes - Statistics, data, evidence and proof (SDEP) clearly indicate that flying is much safer than driving. Then why do most people feel more anxiety when flying than driving?

Sigh, that's not interpreting the data. Peoples anxieties have nothing to do with the data. You're conflating two entirely separate things into a complete mess. The fact that people feel more anxiety during flying does not change the data in anyway. The anxiety is a purely emotional response to the act of flying itself, not based on the data. If there were another interpretation of the data then one should be able to look at it and (using the data itself) come to an alternate conclusion that the data also supports.

People feeling more anxiety is a vague and nebulous concept with many different potential explanations for it which would vary depending on the person. This is why we separate fantasy from reality. A person can feel that the plane they're on is dangrerous as much as they want. However that does not make it true.

As a sidenote, it is possible (and common) to know something intellectually and still have irrational emotional-trigger responses to it. Everytime I cross the High-Level brdge I immediately start to feel slightly panicked even though I know there is no way the bridge is going to collapse. This is because I have a strong dislike of high places. It has nothing to do with interpreting data.

Incorrect diagnoses - SDEP can be the same, yet different diagnoses can be made

Due to human error yes. However this is opposed to what? Picking a diagnosis out of a hat? Or just sitting down and thinking about what diagnosis you want the patient to have?

This seems to be another one of your pitiful attempts at a strawman. I never said that data was the source for ultimate knowledge. What I said was that it was the only way which we have found that let's us separate fantasy from reality. So your example here makes no sense, unless you really are advocating doctors just picking a diagnosis out of a hat to treat their patients.

relationships - need I say more?

You probably should if you want to actually make a coherent point. You were trying to show different ways of interpreting data. Just saying "Relationships" does not mean much.

My point was more to the effect that in light of negative SDEP (mainly abuse), there are people out there who remain with their sig other. You see it ALL the time! Why? Are there other factors other than SDEP controlling the mind of the abused?

There are many factors that apply into such decisions. We understand from our knowledge of how the human brain works in regards to phenomenon such as Stockholm syndrome and Battered Wife syndrome. We understand (through data and research) just how these relationships form.

What I find amusing is that you mention this when it actually goes towards making my case. The reason that these relationships tend to continue (other than one party just being too afraid to leave) is often due to an unwillingness to face the data. The people in these situations usually sustain their mental stability by ignoring the facts and the reality of the situation and believing instead what they want to believe to make themselves happy.

Sometimes they convince themselves that their significant other is simply "sick" or just going through a bad time and all he reallys needs is a little help to get over it. The other promises to reform and they want to believe that its true because it's hard to lose a relationship that one is so emotionally invested in. Religious beliefs are also a very common reason as many religions still put a huge emphasis on the married relationship.

There's also just the matter of love. Just because your other half is being a douche doesn't necessarily mean that feelings of love go away.

There are also other matters such as econimic and social dependance, the existence of children, etc. that are also major factors however they aren't really relevant to the discussion at this moment.

The point is that most of the people (men and women) in those kinds of relationships aren't looking at the reality of their situation. They are trying to retreat into what they want to be true and twisting things around to help them justify their continued presence in the relationship.

This isn't an example of reinterpreting date. It's an example of ignoring it.

Again, you're trying to criticize something that you're supremely ignorant about. It doesn't help any arguments that you're trying to make about the value (or lack thereof) of evidence when you don't even understand how it works. Hell, I had to actually explain basic human communication previously because you couldn't grasp how it applied here. Although you clearly didn't read or understand it.

All of your examples only take into account the most superficial data.

Football games - If I gave you all of the statistics of 100 football games and didn't reveal the score, would you be able to tell me who won?

Not having played, or even really caring about football, probably not. However if you are giving me all of the statistics of the games, that should include the score, shouldn't it?

If I did know anything about football (or cared) then yes, I probably could work it out with a fairly reasonable degree of accuracy.

Gore vs. Bush - According to SDEP, Gore got more votes. Why did Bush win?

Not being American (or caring about the Bush/Gore election) I have nothing to say about this one.

Toyota recalls - SDEP indicates that Toyotas are safe and reliable, yet an entire smear campaign was effectively run to the tune of a recalling of the cars in question and millions in expense.

So if people are lied to, and if they don't bother to look at the actual data to find out what the truth is, they'll reach the wrong conclusions.................your point being?

So, when discussing an intangible like "God", your requirement for SDEP will more likely fall into the gray area than the black and white. If you don't allow for gray, there's no sense going any further.

However since you can never leave grey, there's really no point in starting, is there? After all grey can never actually amount to anything. More to the point however, yours isn't actually "grey". Yours is better described as Mflewm. Because you've arbitrarily changed the colours (ie words) to mean whatever you want them to. So the actual end result is some colour scheme that exists only in your mind.

And you still fail to respond to the main questions. But again, that's nothing new.

But, it hardly warrants insults like calling someone stupid.

I didn't call you stupid. I pointed out things that you said as being stupid. That is because they were, and a lot of it continues to be.

Also I should point out that since you're starting to argue things that were entirely not the point of anything or things that were said, you are coming across as such. Either that or you're being intentionally misleading.

Based on your responses, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

No, you're the one that is missing everything. By this point it has to be intentional.

I'm trying to say that the point of no sale when atheists and theists talk is when the atheist demands SDEP - which is really not something I'm trying to say to support an argument of mine or not. I'm merely trying to explain why theists can believe without needing SDEP.

Yes, I know what you are trying to do.

Instead of taking this note and filing it away, your ego comes into play and you say that what I, YY, thinks makes sense doesn't matter.

Again, the ego dismissive. It's much easier than actually thinking and presenting an argument, isn't it?

In regards to the part that you were quoting, what makes sense doesn't matter. You made a comment about understanding the arguments that make sense to theists and changing our arguments around to suit that. However what makes sense is not the issue of contention. The issue between theists and atheists is what is true. An argument that would make sense to theists doesn't matter if the argument isn't true, because the goal is to get theists to accept the truth.

Your suggestion is to sway theists using emotional appeals, logical fallacies, and false platitudes. In other words the exact same things that atheists, criticize theists for doing. At that point the atheists would be playing the same stupid game. Which is not what atheists are trying to do. Fighting stupid ideas with other stupid ideas is not an effective way to go.

Yes, theists do respond to those types of arguments but that is exactly what needs to change. So there’s no point in using them, is there?

This is why I wrote all of that which followed, to illustrate the point. Pity you didn't bother to read it.

I was speaking for (some) theists and you thought I was speaking for myself? Understanding the theist is the key to communicating with them.

I know you were speaking for some theists. However I was addressing you specifically.

Again, you're not saying anything new or original or giving any different insights into how theists think. You're not even responding to what I said, you still haven't actually dealt with the issues raised. This whole post is essentially a red herring on your part.

Why do you care? You are right and they are wrong right?

I don't know if I'm right. However I do know that I at least have a good shot at finding out if I am or not.

You may or not be correct, but requiring the same of others (when they don't care that you require this) may leave you with unfulfilled expectations. You say that without SDEP, theists are living in fantasy and not reality. Well, their fantasy world is YOUR same reality. Let's say God tells a church memeber to take a thousand fliers and put them under the windshields of cars in the parking lot. You are parked in this parking lot. The theists "fantasy" world just collided with your reality.

Notice the bold, again this is not what was said. But why should you start paying attention and stop making Strawmen now.

Yes, I am aware that their fantasy world collides with mine, you're not really making any coherent points, you know?

This is why I do this, because I have to live in a world that is constantly being polluted by that level of irrational idiocy. The reason I require the same of others is because there's nothing else I can do. How can you communicate with someone who's making things up as they go along? Even if you understand their irrationality they can just change it at a moments notice.

So, what you're saying is one religion speaks the language of (A), another the language of (B), and yet, another, the language (C). You speak (D). AB and C might never speak, but if you want to communicate with any of them, you can't keep speaking D to them! You have to learn A, B, and/or C!  Believe me, not many of them will try to learn D.

This is such a tortured and poorly executed metaphor.

What I am saying, is that religion has no means of ever knowing that it's right. So instead we have several thousand different religions all convincing themselves that they're right for no reason and with no justification. However we have a means available to us that allows us to determine what is right, which religion doesn't want to use because it shows that they're wrong.

We need to start using that method.

The main reason that your anology doesn't work is because religion can't be comparable to a language because a language has to have a defined structure in order for it to work. The words have to have a meaning that people can recognize. Religion is made up in the mind of each indivudual. So it's closest comparison to any language would be gibberish. Everyone has their own "language". You would have to learn an entirely different language for every theist that you wanted to talk to. And none of those languages actually work anyways. So instead of learning billions of different languages that don't work, you have to get everyone to use the language that does (ugh, this metaphor hurts).

I pointed this out several times, in fact I took the time to explain it in several paragraphs (which you apparently didn't bother to read or understand or else we wouldn't have soemthing this dumb being said by you). Since the language that they are speaking is entirely made up words that mean whatever they want in their head, they can change the meaning to whatever suits them at any time. You can't have meaningful communication with someone who is making up their definitions as they go. That's why we have definitions.

This is why atheists communicate so poorly with theists, it's not that we don't understand why they're theists (most of the people here were theists themselves) or that they don't want to accept data and evidence (we get it), it's that every theist has an entirely different theology to work with, all of which change as soon as they decide they want to believe in something else. You have to have some basis in reality to work with before you can discuss anything.

In most subjective arguments there is still some basis for realistic comparison. If you and I both watch the same movie and you hate it while I like it, both opinions are subjective. However we still have points of comparison. We both watched the same movie so we know what happened, we know the dialogue, the actors, etc. Even though we're reaching different conclusions we still have enough of a point of reference that we can have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of the movie.

What you're talking about though, has so few points of reference that you've even changed the language. To go with the analogy above. It's as if you were to come up to me and wanted to talk about a french movie that you dreamed up in your head. I can't see the movie, I can't hear the voices, can't see the acting of the actors, and I can't speak even French. There's very little potential for a substantive dialogue there.

I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.

Bad comparison to Democracy. But you miss the point. When I said that this was the core of every problem that religion has ever had, that is exactly what I meant. Because religion has no ability to tell truth from fiction, it can be used by anyone to do anything at anytime. That was one of the purposes of my example with the three religions from above. Any idea that a religion (or religious person) wants to use has the exact same evidence as any the ideas of every other, so there is no reality check. It can be used to justify any action that a person wishes to take. Saying "god wants us to kill the fags" is just as valid a position as "god wants us to enslave the Negroes" or "god wants us to be happy and love everyone".

Do bad people use religion to do bad things, absolutely. However it is the nature of religion itself that lets them so easily do it.

Now, let's see what you'll not pay attention to/misrepresent/lie about in my post this time.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 04:19:27 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #147 on: October 05, 2011, 04:15:44 PM »
ROFL!  Oh my, YY,  you really think I can’t?  This seems to either indicate you are utterly ignorant of your bible, or you are desperately hoping I am and wouldn’t want to bother with this.

Boy, you are really showing your hatred towards Christians. First, your answer is up to interpretation. You sure can site a lot of the hate in the Bible, but you can only find one instance of the love. Total Atheist bias. Second, I said:

Quote
If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point.


Apparently, to you, "holy books" means the Bible. You're probably going to call me a Christian again.


Indeed. YY, you claimed that my definition of religion was lacking in someway, that it was “superficial”.  You haven’t clarified that.  You also haven’t shown why theists could be right in claiming that their religions are nonsense in that everything about them shows that they are human creations. 

I don't even know what you're referring to or asking. Please repost this question, especially the bolded part.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #148 on: October 06, 2011, 08:58:32 AM »
Oh my YY, I do love your repetition of a lie.  No, I don’t hate Christians or you.  Hate to ruin your martyrdom fantasies.  I do love how you now retreat to “your answer is up to interpretation”, when you claimed earlier that “If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.”  I do enjoy how when I have done something, now you want to move the goalposts.  How deliciously typical.   And I even get another lie, that I found “only one instance of the love”.  No, dear, I found many claims of love but I pointed out how this love is not love at all.  I’m waiting for you to show how this god loves anything like, oh, my husband loves me and I love him.  You see this sentence of mine?  “Christians often claim that God’s love is “unconditional” but there are conditions on top of conditions, the first of which is believe in me and obey no matter what, and that’s the “love” that is described in the OT and NT.”  this is me saying that I’ve found lots of claims of love in the bible.  I go on to support how this is not love and earlier in this, I show that this god can’t even come up to the definition in supposed own holy book?

And you want me to go into other holy books other than the Bible and Torah?  Sure!  How about the Qu’ran?  Lots of hate and killing for god there and very much based on the Bible and Torah.  The Vedas?  The Mahabarata?  All claim that those who do not follow “x” are less than “worthy” and deserve conversion, annihilation, etc.  I will admit that some religions do seem to advocate a much less nasty approach to others.  The Sikhs, perhaps Confuciaism, etc.  But if we want to go with volume, I posit and can support that hate and required harm of others is supported much more strongly than any “love” in the world’s holy books.  IF you wish to claim otherwise, then I expect to see the same support for your side, YY, and not some vague claim by you with nothing else. 

I believe you called yourself a Christian.  I don’t need to do that. And in this discussion, it’s rather immaterial since it doesn’t make you any more right or wrong about your claims.   

I see that I missed a “not” in my final paragraph.  My apologies.   

I believe religion is just as much a human invention as democracy. And in it's most superficial understanding, yes, religion is what you describe, but theists would disagree that it's nonsense. It is my belief that the largest religions of the world are used FOR regulating behavior. The harm caused is a side effect of individuals or small groups using religion for their personal gain.

There are probably many people in positions of power who don't even believe in their particular brand of religion or who may be non-believers posing as "Christians" in order to strategically motivate the masses. The opposite is true whereby no politician in their right mind would say outright that they are Muslim (in the US) or atheist. That would be political suicide.


YY, you claimed that my definition of religion was lacking in someway, that it was “superficial”.  You haven’t clarified that and it seems that this is the usual attempt by a theist to redefine the term religion so you can wiggle away from its requirements. You also haven’t shown why theists could be right in claiming that their religions are not nonsense in that everything about them shows that they are human creations. I would like to see how “they” &) would support their disagreement.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #149 on: October 06, 2011, 03:22:27 PM »
It's simple Velks. Your ego is getting in the way. Otherwise you'd agree with him entirely.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #150 on: October 06, 2011, 06:39:42 PM »
I posit and can support that hate and required harm of others is supported much more strongly than any “love” in the world’s holy books.  IF you wish to claim otherwise, then I expect to see the same support for your side, YY, and not some vague claim by you with nothing else. 

There is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments. If anything, this is the core of the Bible and what God wanted to relay to his followers. I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?  Here are the good ones and other sentiments of love and do-gooding . . .

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Honor your father and your mother

You shall not murder.
 
You shall not commit adultery.
 
You shall not steal.
 
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet . . .

Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

I will be glad and rejoice in your love, for you saw my affliction and knew the anguish of my soul.

Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other.

But I will sing of your strength, in the morning I will sing of your love; for you are my fortress, my refuge in times of trouble.

Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.

He who pursues righteousness and love finds life, prosperity and honor.

Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred.

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

1 Corinthians 16:14
14 Do everything in love.

Allah loves kindness when you deal with any matter

You will not enter Paradise until you have faith and you will not have faith until you love one another. Do you want me to tell you something you can do to make you love one another? Make it a habit to greet one another with “Assalaamu Alaykum” – peace upon you

Give gifts to each other, as this will make you love one another

If a Muslim loves his Muslim brother, he should inform him

None of you will truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself




YY, you claimed that my definition of religion was lacking in someway, that it was “superficial”.  You haven’t clarified that and it seems that this is the usual attempt by a theist to redefine the term religion so you can wiggle away from its requirements. You also haven’t shown why theists could be right in claiming that their religions are not nonsense in that everything about them shows that they are human creations. I would like to see how “they” &) would support their disagreement.

When you touch upon a topic as one-sided as you do, you are just giving headlines and thus, being superficial. And are you stating that human creations are nonsense? Sounds like it with the quote above.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #151 on: October 06, 2011, 09:00:14 PM »
Carved into stone the ten commandments did he? Where?  Where are the stone tablets? Something as special and important as that, someone just lost? No records of storing it either, version 1 or 2?

What language were the commandments written in? Perfect English perhaps?

Why would a perfect god be jealous? Why would a perfect god be insecure?

Why would god not give an update in 4000 years? Why a god written message in 2000 bc and not in 2000 ad? or 50 bc

Why would god write a stone tablet when 99.999% of the people were illiterate, but only whisper to conservative christians in modern times when we can translate almost anything?

Why did god write in stone, wouldn't a 100 lb block of black diamond have been better? Or perhaps a 5000 lb block of 3140 stainless steel. No it just happened to be what the technology of a bronze age goat herder.

The story is full of crap!
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #152 on: October 07, 2011, 08:55:33 AM »
There is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments. If anything, this is the core of the Bible and what God wanted to relay to his followers. I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?  Here are the good ones and other sentiments of love and do-gooding . . .
  And what does this have to do with your claims and my points?  Where did I say anything about the commandments being “wrong” or “right” in this discussion?   Now we magically need to address the 10 Commandments (which don’t end at 10, YY, they go on and on and on).  I do love your insistence that this is what God “really” meant to relay to his followers. Funny again how so many Christians don’t agree with you.  They are sure that the commandments and laws of the OT dont’ apply to them, and you seem to be just one more, willing to accept those that are convenient but not when they are ridiculous to a modern human being.  I do love how you again and again try to move the goalposts.  It’s a lovely testament to just how mistaken your claims have been. 

How about we go further into the commandments and laws from this god in this holy book.  How many of them say how and when to kill someone for not agreeing with your religion?    Exodus 22.  Deut 13. Deut 17, Mark 6 (some versions remove the verse that has that any town that doesn’t accept JC will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah), and Jud 5 is always  good one for threats by a prophet that if you don’t belive god will destroy you. 

All of these commandments and all of these laws all show that your claim that the “10” commandments are the “core” is wrong.  IF this were so, then there wouldn’t’ be a need for all of this detail. 

As for “do unto others”,yep, that’s in the bible.  Also in just about every other ancient civilization including those much older than this bunch of xenophobic agrarians.  You recall, YY, that you said that there was more instances of love than hate in the bible.  I know that there are some thing about love and tolerance, but until you show me that there are “more” of those than of hate, you still fail.  And as I said before, the “love” claimed in the bible is either failed totally by this Christian god or is not love at all, but commanded obedience on pain of death or worse. 

Quote
Allah loves kindness when you deal with any matter.
Rather than retyping them here is a list that shows that, like the bible, the Qu’ran is just as full of exhortations of violence and hate: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/short.html  Again, I am not saying that the various holy books don’t say good things, I am saying that they are vastly outnumbered by the hate spewed by these books. 
Quote
When you touch upon a topic as one-sided as you do, you are just giving headlines and thus, being superficial. And are you stating that human creations are nonsense? Sounds like it with the quote above.
And more baseless claims about me, YY.  How sad.  Again, you don’t actually answer my question, you simply make more false accusations about me and run away.  Where is the evidence for your claims, YY?  It seems you have none.  How does my definition of religion not be “deep” enough?  If you want to claim I’m superficial, then show how I am, not just again make vague claims.  But you don’t seem to be able to.  And no, YY, I am not saying your little strawman.  I am saying “You also haven’t shown why theists could be right in claiming that their religions are not nonsense in that everything about them shows that they are human creations.”  I am not saying that “all” human creations are nonsense as you are trying to claim I am.  Sad. Let’s go back to what you claimed
I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.
I asked “does this make religion just as much of a human invention as democracy?”  and stated  “Religion is based on an idea that there is some magical entity/force that somehow influences the world.  Since we don't have any evidence of this at all, it really does seem that religion is just more nonsense, and is used and is *for* causing harm as well as regulating behavior.”

As an answer to this you said “And in it's most superficial understanding, yes, religion is what you describe, but theists would disagree that it's nonsense.”  I have been asking for clarification on what you meant here.  How am I “superficial” in my definition of religion, and how would theists disagree that it’s nonsense, *and* then asked how can they support that their claims aren’t nonsense.  You have yet to answer any of this with more than vague unsupported claims (what does “you are just giving headlines” actually mean?)  and indeed claims that are simply untrue, like that I am presenting only one side of a topic. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #153 on: October 07, 2011, 09:48:27 AM »
I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?

Carve it into a mountain?
Carve it into the sky? You can use clouds or rips in space-time.
Maybe a billboard?

Y'know... something a tad more permanent.

And bigger.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4357
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #154 on: October 07, 2011, 10:13:42 AM »
I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?

Carve it into a mountain?
Carve it into the sky? You can use clouds or rips in space-time.
Maybe a billboard?

Y'know... something a tad more permanent.

And bigger.

I was thinking about this just this morning, in fact... why not leave some kind of irrefutable proof?  How about a mile-high statue of Jesus in the middle of the desert, made of an alloy that hadn't been invented at the time, with a huge inscription at the base saying, "I am Jesus, the son of God, and I was here.  And this is the statue whose construction is described in the Book of Matthew."  Floating in the air, and completely impervious to all attempts to destroy it, including nuclear weapons.  Something like that.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6583
  • Darwins +516/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #155 on: October 07, 2011, 03:22:54 PM »
There is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments. If anything, this is the core of the Bible and what God wanted to relay to his followers. I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?  Here are the good ones and other sentiments of love and do-gooding . . .

[fluffy-bunny, God-loves-everyone, liberal blasphemy and out of context apologist lies deleted]
Let's get to the truth of the matter:

God Hates
Hypocrites (Matthew 24:51), The Unforgiving (Mark 11:26), Homosexuals (Romans 1:26, 27), Fornicators (Romans 1:29), Those who do not seek Him (2 Chronicles 15:13), The Wicked (Romans 1:29), The Covetous (Romans 1:29), The Malicious (Romans 1:29), The Envious (Romans 1:29), Murderers (Romans 1:29), The Deceitful (Romans 1:29), Backbiters (Romans 1:30), Haters of God (Romans 1:30), The Despiteful (Romans 1:30), The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30), Inventors of evil (Romans 1:30), Disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30), Covenant breakers (Romans 1:31), The Unmerciful (Romans 1:31), The Implacable (Romans 1:31), The Unrighteous (1Corinthians 6:9), Idolaters (1Corinthians 6:9), Adulterers (1Corinthians 6:9), The Effeminate (1Corinthians 6:9), Thieves (1Corinthians 6:10), Drunkards (1Corinthians 6:10), Reviler (1Corinthians 6:10), Extortioners (1Corinthians 6:10), The Fearful (Revelation 21:8 ), The Unbelieving (Revelation 21:8 ), The Abominable (Revelation 21:8 ), Whoremongers (Revelation 21:8 ), Sorcerers (Revelation 21:8 ), All Liars (Revelation 21:8 )

God committed genocide at least 6 times, accepted human sacrifice, and was defeated by another god - it's all there in the Bible.

Now let’s look at this verse and what it means: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Joh:13:34

To whom was it said? The disciples.
Did Jesus say this to the public or his other followers? No.
Was Jesus capable of making Himself clear? Yes. We must therefore accept that Jesus spoke only to the Disciples and the message was for them and them alone.

Did Jesus say anything like this to everyone? Yes, He said, M't:5:43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
M't:5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


So, who is my neighbour?
1.   Not anyone God hates
2.   Not any of the races God killed
3.   Not anyone who does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Master. (Luke:19:27)

Basically, it is “other Christians” and no one else.

So how do we bring together the idea of loving everyone except some people? Well, the answer is, If someone is bad to you, you forgive them. If someone is bad to God, kill them.

One law for man, another for that all-loving God, eh? If God hates hypocrites, where does that leave Him?




« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 03:25:04 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2639
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #156 on: October 07, 2011, 10:53:49 PM »
I mean, how much more emphasis can you put on something than to carve it into tablets of stone?

After work tonight I went to the package store to pick some Evan Williams for me and my wife. They had a sample table set up right as you walk in the door. A friendly young woman smiled and asked me if I would like to try some samples so I asked what she had. There were a couple of different kinds of wines but the two I was interested in were the bottle of hard apple cider and a bottle of caramel apple liqueur. I told her I would like to try the hard cider and as she poured a very modest sample in a plastic cup I asked her what sort of drink you could make with the caramel apple liqueur. By this time there was another man looking very interested in sampling the wares but waiting patiently for us to finish before speaking. She handed me the cup and said not to drink it all but I wasn't paying close attention and, of course, drank it all. She said, "you weren't listening to me, I said NOT to drink it all" but she was still smiling so I knew it was okay. The cider was not really all that impressive, especially for $4 per 12 oz. bottle. So anyway, she pours me the sample from the caramel apple liqueur and instructs me to not drink all of it again. This time I paid attention and only sipped about half of the sample and handed the cup back to her. She then poured a little of the hard cider into the liqueur to show me what kind of drink you could mix with the caramel apple. You should have seen her face...she was practically beaming. The mix was quite tasty but I was there for Evan because with him I get more bang for my buck. So I thank her and head toward the bourbon section as the young man waiting patiently pounces on his opportunity to sample some free hooch. I heard her ask for his I.D. as I walked back by...didn't ask for mine. Oh well.

No sooner had I found my place in line I saw a old friend whom I hadn't seen in years. We hugged and exchanged a brief synopsis of what we had been doing with our time since we last hung out. We exchanged numbers and set a tentative date for this following Monday to have drinks.

So anyway, as I was walking back to my truck I was thinking about ancient artifacts and my mind tripped over the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain. It strikes me as very peculiar that something hand delivered by God himself would go missing. Where are the Tablets YY? For that matter, where is the Arc of the Covenant?

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #157 on: October 08, 2011, 09:22:35 PM »
Wow, lots of responses on god carving the 10 commandments into stone. . .

I've said it many times before, that I don't believe the bible to be literal. I've also heard it from everyone here that this is agreed. 2nd, if I'm talking in context of the Bible "story", and there is emphasis put on a particular "scene", then yes, carving into stone would be one of the most impressive acts to show that these commandments were pretty important.

Yet, noone answers the original question of there being more instances of love vs. hate in the "holy books". No, rather, the conversation steers toward the bible. And then, nobody even attempts to offer anything concrete except for Graybeard.

So I don't understand why everyone chimes in about the 10 commandments being written on stone when they don't even believe it happened anyway?

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #158 on: October 08, 2011, 09:26:49 PM »
Wow, lots of responses on god carving the 10 commandments into stone. . .

So I don't understand why everyone chimes in about the 10 commandments being written on stone when they don't even believe it happened anyway?

I'll type it slow for you... We're making fun of it.. because it's S.T.U.P.I.D.

Both the Bible and the story within it.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #159 on: October 08, 2011, 09:28:01 PM »
To sum up the argument of more love vs. hate, there is one saying that would heal the world if followed true to the letter. Love your neighbor as yourself.

So you can focus on all of the wars and genocide, or you can choose to focus on something else.

Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #160 on: October 08, 2011, 09:29:17 PM »
I'll type it slow for you... We're making fun of it.. because it's S.T.U.P.I.D.

Both the Bible and the story within it.

Hey, I think the Lord of the Rings is stupid. Everybody's just piling on.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #161 on: October 08, 2011, 09:36:02 PM »
I'll type it slow for you... We're making fun of it.. because it's S.T.U.P.I.D.
Both the Bible and the story within it.
Hey, I think the Lord of the Rings is stupid. Everybody's just piling on.
I agree that the LOTR is stupid, and if we were beset by hoards of LOTR fan cultists and some engaged us in a forum, we'd be chatting and Piling on the stupidities in the film. Sure..
But because we're "piling on for fun" doesn't affect the veracity of our accusations one little bit.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #162 on: October 08, 2011, 09:40:23 PM »
To sum up the argument of more love vs. hate, there is one saying that would heal the world if followed true to the letter. Love your neighbor as yourself.

So you can focus on all of the wars and genocide, or you can choose to focus on something else.

Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

John Lennon wrote a song called "Imagine".  Basically imagine a world without religion and it's accompanying conflicts. That would bring the most peace in one fell swoop.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #163 on: October 09, 2011, 09:06:54 AM »


Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

No, but get out of the driver seat and let us try for 2000 years. After all, you have had that long to accomplish that goal, and still haven't.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #164 on: October 09, 2011, 12:01:23 PM »
Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

 I believe they did give it a "go".  We refer to it as "The Communist Manifesto" now.Never really worked that well for world peace though.Personal freedom takes a "hit" where it's implemented , too.
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #165 on: October 09, 2011, 11:35:59 PM »
Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

 I believe they did give it a "go".  We refer to it as "The Communist Manifesto" now.Never really worked that well for world peace though.Personal freedom takes a "hit" where it's implemented , too.

Bullcrap, utter and unmitigated bullcrap. Communism is a Dogma and shares a great deal of things in common with religion:

(1)A Holy Text
(2)A group of interpreters of said text supported through force
(3)Geographically isolated lead interpreters have differing interpretations(schism) which have led to conflict
(4)A resistance to evidence, to the point of mocking, jailing, and killing those that attempt to show that evidence
(5)Saints, revered dead figures that serve as icons
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #166 on: October 10, 2011, 09:59:45 AM »
Books by atheist on world peace?

See The World Set Free or The Shape of Things to Come by HG Wells.  See The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.  Read the works of any number of other science fiction authors such as Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #167 on: October 10, 2011, 12:29:33 PM »
John Lennon wrote a song called "Imagine".  Basically imagine a world without religion and it's accompanying conflicts. That would bring the most peace in one fell swoop.

Riiiight. Have you ever seen "Bedazzled"? Besides having an extremely hot Elizabeth Hurley, the movie basically says "be careful what you ask for". Moral of the story, you never know if what you wish for will give you the outcome you expect or want. What IS true is that everything that actually has happened brought you to exactly where you are today and there's no denying that.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #168 on: October 10, 2011, 12:31:41 PM »
No, but get out of the driver seat and let us try for 2000 years. After all, you have had that long to accomplish that goal, and still haven't.

Lame excuse. Who's stopping you? Please start one right away. The world needs it. No law that says we can't have multiple books with instructions to bring about world peace. I challenge you to even put together a concept and tell me that it's any different than those of the holy books.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #169 on: October 10, 2011, 12:33:04 PM »
People should be careful what they wish for. It would help if they were more specific.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #170 on: October 10, 2011, 12:42:33 PM »
Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

 I believe they did give it a "go".  We refer to it as "The Communist Manifesto" now.Never really worked that well for world peace though.Personal freedom takes a "hit" where it's implemented , too.

Yikes. I agree there are some good things about Communism, but hybrid systems work better.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #171 on: October 10, 2011, 12:46:15 PM »
Books by atheist on world peace?

See The World Set Free or The Shape of Things to Come by HG Wells.  See The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.  Read the works of any number of other science fiction authors such as Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov.

I haven't read these, but I will.

So, you say that there are some valid points to consider implementing into lifestyle from these works of fiction? Now, is this as ridiculous as the way I view my religion and spirituality? I've been mocked endlessly for accepting as truth some of the teachings of the bible and other holy books and even speaches by spiritual leaders. How is this any different than what you are suggesting?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #172 on: October 10, 2011, 03:49:00 PM »
No, but get out of the driver seat and let us try for 2000 years. After all, you have had that long to accomplish that goal, and still haven't.

Lame excuse. Who's stopping you? Please start one right away. The world needs it. No law that says we can't have multiple books with instructions to bring about world peace. I challenge you to even put together a concept and tell me that it's any different than those of the holy books.

Those words were lame.

You stated: "No Atheist has written a book that will bring about world peace" which implied, and I can tell this game, that somehow The Bible would. After two thousand years(Or more accurately 1750 years) of the Jesus story being told has it brought about peace. In fact it has been used as justification for more than a few wars.

So generation after generation after generation, theism has not brought peace. Even though it remains as a significant political force and something politician must still give obeisance to to this very day.

Yet with all this power, all this opportunity, all this control, Still no peace when given dozens of centuries to achieve it.

NO PEACE.

Yet you still have the gall to derisively look down your nose and ask that question.


An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #173 on: October 11, 2011, 09:47:22 AM »
To sum up the argument of more love vs. hate, there is one saying that would heal the world if followed true to the letter. Love your neighbor as yourself.

So you can focus on all of the wars and genocide, or you can choose to focus on something else.

Has any atheist written a book that would bring about world peace? If so, what would their philosophy be?

wow, congratulations for even moving the goalposts further!  ;D Now, you want to claim that we're just "focusing on something else" when we can show that your claim was wrong and indeed, you seem to need to lie about it when claiming that
Quote
"Yet, noone answers the original question of there being more instances of love vs. hate in the "holy books". No, rather, the conversation steers toward the bible. And then, nobody even attempts to offer anything concrete except for Graybeard.
 

When I and GB, etc, have indeed shown you to be wrong and have offered plenty of things that are "concrete".  Of course, when asked to support your side, you don’t!  Gee, how could I have guess that would happen! &)

It’s also quite hilarious that onesteward wants to make that old claim that atheists equal communists.
Quote
  I believe they did give it a "go".  We refer to it as "The Communist Manifesto" now.Never really worked that well for world peace though.Personal freedom takes a "hit" where it's implemented , too.
Really, onesteward?  I’m not and I can guess that most of my fellow atheists here aren’t.  Now, if you do want to get into politics and religion, how about that bible?   We have a holy book that advocates killing anyone who doesn’t worship this god.  What a good book!   :)Happily, men who weren’t following this nonsense came up with a pretty decent government called a representative democracy.  They intentionally ignored religion to come up with it.  They decided that they didn’t need a religion telling them that kings have some sort of divine right since this god supposedly put all of them in place to be followed blindly. 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/