Author Topic: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!  (Read 8308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #87 on: December 22, 2013, 06:59:12 PM »
graybeard- We both know you can answer these questions. I wasn't being tricky. My jargon was not strictly biblical. SPIRITUAL maybe, but not biblical. This was written for an agnostic view as stated in the first line. I feel I was speaking plainly enough. I honestly tried to answer these questions but I couldn't find a respectful way to break this down. I came across as though I was patronizing so I scrapped the whole thing.

As for the tulip I would think an ex-baptist would be well aware of this but...
 enter the tulip... I answered this a few posts back on this thread. here is the quote.

I rather thought someone had looked it up since I mentioned it several times. TULIP is an acrostic used for Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrines of sovereignty, or doctrines of Grace. These are all different names for the same thing. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #88 on: December 22, 2013, 07:22:38 PM »
while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?
What if the food is providence? The man orders more than he needs (he must be American right... lol yes before I upset someone I am American) Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord. I don't believe in chance or luck as these human concepts contradict the sovereignty of God. I am currently wrestling with free will though. Could it be a series of poor choices that have left you homeless? Or is it a lesson in perhaps compassion that the Lord wishes you to learn that you may effect another person later in life? Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.

If my mother was a prostitute that got impregnated by one of her customers whom she has never seen or heard of since he paid her. Regardless how happy I am with my life, I owe that man nothing. If that guy wanted to be a father, it's His responsibility to seek me first, why must I do everything for someone that allegedly "loves" me? After all, he did the deed, for himself.

I see your train of thought. it's not lost to me that you have reduced God to some kind of John. I don't like this... I'll work with this though. :)

I don't know my father so I identify with this too.
my comment was about being thankful not seeking God. Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life? Without my father I wouldn't be here. In my case my father was abusive so I am thankful for not knowing that type of childhood.
No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.
As for why should you seek Him? unlike your John father In this case Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #89 on: December 22, 2013, 08:03:53 PM »
What of those people who have no joy in their lives? Those who live with crippling pain or neverending hunger? Those who suffer from debilitating depression, or who lose their entire homes and families through random catastrophe? Those who, literally, live and die having experienced almost nothing but misery?

I suppose that if they were convinced that it was all some part of a master plan, they might be able to find some solace in it (though many, in fact, cannot face the pain of their lives and end up committing suicide or just wasting away, derelict, on a street corner somewhere). But if they are merely by-products of a world created by god for his own amusement, why should they feel any gratitude for their existence?

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6479
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #90 on: December 22, 2013, 08:45:56 PM »
He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

Harbinger

I trust that we can all agree that that our both our planet and the universe are complex places. If you look out in the night sky without the aid of a telescope, you can see planets and stars. Some of the planets are relatively small, others are huge. Some of the stars are yellow, some are red, some are blue. Some are small, some are humongous. You can see our moon, and we know that some of the other planets have moons as well. In some cases, large numbers of moons. We've found 67 so far around Jupiter, 52 around Saturn.

And with a sufficiently powerful telescope, we can see not only our galaxy, but far, far away galaxies. And see that the universe is an incredibly huge and complex place.

On earth, we have wonder after wonder. We live amongst an amazing assortment of plants, animals, bacteria and viruses. Biologists who study such things find astonishing connections between the life forms. We have moths that eat only hair and fur, and without them the planet would be several feet deep in fuzzies because neither of those two things decompose. We have a wide variety of plants that can only be fertilized by very specific species of insects or birds. We have ecosystem complexities in our great coral reefs that are fragile, and that are sadly falling apart because the planet has warmed but a few degrees.

Everywhere you look you see complexity. And if your god had a hand in it, it means that he took great care to create the conditions and situations I have described. It would not be a casual act to create the naked mole rat, an animal that can only live in its underground tunnels, replete with high methane levels from passing gas and high carbon dioxide levels because of their lack of air circulation. But they thrive. And if your god was involved, he paid attention to that detail, as well as every other detail on this planet and in the universe.

And he only managed to come up with two options for humans after death. He was capable of making the rings around Saturn, but didn't come up with any other choices for us besides heaven and hell. He figured out how to deal with excessive hair but he can't allow for good people who don't accept his kid, he can't allow for people who were good but in a moment of frustration or fear acted out of character. He can't allow for people like me who need more proof than people like you. He can't allow for differences in intelligence, temperament, social conditions, political realities, fear, or misinformation.

He couldn't design a list of criteria which would differentiate between Hitler and my non-born again grandmother. When a person otherwise fails to pass his "get on your knees" test, it is all over. There is nothing complex about it.  He took the time to make sure that 30% of humans had harmless little Demonex folliculorum mites living in the follicles of their eyelashes, but he couldn't take the time to either make his message clear to all (rather than just those susceptible to it) or offer up a variety of afterlife scenarios, based on one's overall behavior. It is either the streets of gold or the pits of fire.

And that is one of the reasons that I know that religion is a human invention. Infinite beings would, by definition, be a bit more understanding of us puny humans, because as being who enjoyed complexity, they would know that our weaknesses (when compared to their strengths) were such that we were prone to misunderstanding obscure instruction sets. Humans, on the other hands, who for whatever reason want to control others, are prone to indeed go with the extremes, the black and white choices that are clearly human scenarios. Come with us or suffer for an eternity! What could be more human than that?

What you don't seem to take into account is that when people evolved to be smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, they started making stuff up. They started finding links that weren't there, because humans evolved to see patterns. And the imagined started becoming the real because it probably made existence a bit easier. And what probably started off as an explanation as to why the cave gods let Junior be eaten by a saber toothed tiger eventually became your god sending down his kid to help define evil and how to combat it.

No, JC didn't taste death. Storytellers made it sound like he did, but there was no JC, just like there is no god. Humans, intervening in life by trying to redefine it as something it is not, have distorted human existence far more than necessary. Especially in 2013. And people such as yourself, prone to accepting the story (which was written specifically for those who are, you know, prone to accepting the story), swallow it lock, stock and barrel, again for very human reasons. And some of you show up on our site and tell us how wrong we are, because you honestly believe that we are. And if we can't communicate the futility of your belief system adequately, you may be stuck with it the rest of your life.

The subject of this thread, whether god is moral if he lets bad things happen, is of interest only to you. We atheists understand that there is no god, so the question is moot. But theists, who insist that there is, need to play games with our heads and their own to keep the otherwise precarious definition of their god intact. And we atheists tend to ask things like "Why would your god do this or that?" in an effort to get you to think about it.

But I think you're old enough for the truth. The people who told you that there is a god were wrong. And your world is distorted because of it.

It is fixable. Stop seeing the light. It isn't there.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #91 on: December 23, 2013, 01:30:48 AM »
I see your train of thought. it's not lost to me that you have reduced God to some kind of John. I don't like this... I'll work with this though. :)

I don't know my father so I identify with this too.
my comment was about being thankful not seeking God. Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life?

I didn't ask to be alive, but if I needed to be thankful for the good things in my life... then I'd also need to be thankful for the bad things in my life. I didn't ask to be given free-will to then be demanded to grovel on my knees or face eternal damnation in a firey hell. I guess I should be "thankful" for that as well, eh?  &)

Without my father I wouldn't be here. In my case my father was abusive so I am thankful for not knowing that type of childhood.
No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.

There are people who have it worse off than I. So I am glad it wasn't worse... however the one to "thank" for my perserverence, is me. The one who learned stuff reading books to make my life better instead of wallowing in self pity on thier knees, was me. The one who decided to get back up after getting smacked down and faced adversity on without anyone's support, was me. 

As for why should you seek Him? unlike your John father In this case Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

There is no evidence of this "heaven" that is above the sky dome. There is no sky dome either. There is a Cosmos. A muslim would say all that is attributed to Allah. How can you prove that they are wrong? They have just as much proof that they are correct as you do, ie. none. How do you tell that "God's voice" is his and not your subconcious? If there was a heavenly father there, he was indistinguishable from an invisible immaterial brick wall... as if he was never there.

Until the "heavenly father" decides to make an appearence and have a chit-chat with me, I'll live as if he doesn't exist. Everything you attribute to him, until he shows up and proves that he's the cause, I'll have to accept a more natural explanation than Santa, Fairies, Elves, God, Angels, Vampires and Werewolves.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #92 on: December 23, 2013, 05:07:20 AM »
So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?
while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?

Ah - but YOU said it was all made for HIM.  So any enjoyment I may get from it was not because he made anything with my happiness in mind, just his.


What if the food is providence? ... Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord.

Thank the Lord....IF the food was made for me.  It wasn't.  So I'm happy to get the food, but why should I give thanks for the scraps that were produced with no thought of me?

Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.

Nope, not if your Biblical quote is correct - because it means that everything your god created was doen for HIS purposes, not mine.  Do I get some tangential benefit from it?  Sure!  But I'm not going to be "thankful" for the scraps.  Nor am I even going to be thankful for creation, if my creation was done for his benefit.

That's the problem you've caused yourself by introducing that one quote that contradicts everything else in the Bible.  Not only do you now have to explain away a phrase that says the opposite of most other phrases, you now have yet another thing to twist an apologetic for.

Bottom line: you give thanks for someone who does something for YOU.  Not for something they do for THEMSELVES, that you happen to get a side benefit from. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #93 on: December 23, 2013, 05:09:49 AM »
I see no reason God wouldn't "strike up a conversation" other than the fact that you won't humble yourself, get on your knees and make the call.

Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way

Okay, I'm confused.  Is it down to me, or down to Yahweh, to get things moving?

On the subject of contradictions that need to be reconciled.....   ;)
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #94 on: December 23, 2013, 05:17:23 AM »
Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life? No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.

I think this is where you are getting confused.  There are always things to be happy for, sure.  I'm very happy I exist.  But your Biblical quote makes clear that my life was not made for MY benefit, but for your god's - and that is why "thankfulness" becomes a nonsense.

As for why should you seek Him? ..... Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death.

Again, NOT given for ME.  Everything was created for HIM, you said, digging out a verse in order to prove a point you were making that this world isn't ours, that it was all created for god, not us.  But because you didn't think it through - because you've never thought your theology through - you are now desperately backpedalling to say "well, actually, be grateful because it IS all made for you".

But YOU SAID.....

One more thing Earth was not made for us...

If Earth was not made for us, there is no reason at all to be thankful to its creator.  But you can't retract, because then you'd have to deny the scripture that you dug out.  So you are stuck with the impossible to reconcile "be thankful for something that was created for someone else".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #95 on: December 23, 2013, 01:32:18 PM »



My comment about being thankful not seeking Ugabuga. Why can't you just be thankful you given life? Without father I wouldn't be here. In my case father was abusive so I thankful not knowing that type  childhood.
No matter the circumstance there always something be thankful for.
As why should you seek Ugabuga? unlike your John father In this case Ugabuga given you much. Your life, sun, stars, food, fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything you.. even King Agga, his son, tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

That's what you sound like to me. An ignorant savage bowing down before your volcano god.
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 harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #96 on: December 24, 2013, 01:16:59 AM »
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

As humanists I don't expect providence would be a concept one would accept. So I see where the disconnect is.

 prov·i·dence /?präv?d?ns/
Noun:
1. The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power
2. God or nature as providing such care

hu·man·ism /?(h)yo?om??niz?m/
Noun:
 1. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine
or supernatural matters
2. A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived
interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #97 on: December 24, 2013, 01:35:23 AM »
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

As humanists I don't expect providence would be a concept one would accept. So I see where the disconnect is.

 prov·i·dence /?präv?d?ns/
Noun:
1. The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power
2. God or nature as providing such care

hu·man·ism /?(h)yo?om??niz?m/
Noun:
 1. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine
or supernatural matters
2. A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived
interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought

I find it humorous that you refuse to post the whole definitions, then refuse to provide your sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/providence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanism
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #98 on: December 24, 2013, 02:50:40 AM »
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

And so it should be.  Because our lives were not created as a gift for us, but as a gift for himself.

If someone in your house bought themselves a present at Christmas - a DVD, let's say - then said that it was okay for you to be in the room while they watched it, would you feel overwhelmied with gratitude to them?

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

Again - we weren't created for ourselves, but as a means to stop god being sad.  Well, gee, that really makes me feel valued.

Ever been in a relationship, harbinger?  If your partner turned to you and said "I don't really love YOU, you know.  You could have been anyone.  I just had to find someone to be with because I was so lonely", would you feel chuffed to bits at being the random choice they went with?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #99 on: December 24, 2013, 07:17:58 AM »
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #100 on: December 24, 2013, 11:33:18 AM »
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
I second this.
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.

Online Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #101 on: December 24, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
^^^
Thirded.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #102 on: December 24, 2013, 01:48:24 PM »
graybeard- We both know you can answer these questions.
I think my point is, what do you mean by those words? in http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg590741.html#msg590741 I know what I think they mean, but, in the context you used them, their meaning is not at all clear.
Quote
I wasn't being tricky.
I am sure that you did not intend to be tricky, but you use these words and it is only fair that we know what you, you personally, mean by them, otherwise we could be discussing the wrong point. 
Quote
I honestly tried to answer these questions but I couldn't find a respectful way to break this down.
To my mind, this indicates that the words have little real meaning. You use them as "impressive filler". I want to know the meaning of "truth" as you have used it
Quote
I came across as though I was patronizing so I scrapped the whole thing.
No, you came across just as if you were talking as you usually do. The difficulty I, and I think others, have is that when you use such specialised words in a religious context, they obviously don't mean the same thing as when used elsewhere (if they can be used elsewhere.)

Quote
As for the tulip I would think an ex-baptist would be well aware of this but...
They may well be, but I know no ex-Baptists to ask.
Quote
I rather thought someone had looked it up since I mentioned it several times. TULIP is an acrostic used for Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrines of sovereignty, or doctrines of Grace. These are all different names for the same thing. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
Well... I am better informed but not a lot wiser. The only thing I really got out of it was "total depravity". At that point I stopped reading : )

However, before you get off too lightly, what, exactly do you mean by "truth" and the other words and phrases in http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg590741.html#msg590741 in the way you used them?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 01:51:47 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #103 on: December 24, 2013, 08:21:24 PM »
harbinger:  One of the links in your signature states that there are only three options to explain our existence; God,  agnosticism, or atheism.  However, these have nothing to do with explaining existence.  They refer to human beliefs - and completely presuppose that a god or gods exist.

The truth is that there are really only two general possibilities to explain our existence.  First is that it happened through nature, and second that it happened via something impossible to explain via nature (ala, the supernatural).  Saying that we don't know dies not explain anything.  In short, it is a true dilemma.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #104 on: December 26, 2013, 12:34:45 AM »
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
I second this.

4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

To be a Theist one must state there IS God. This is also an extreme position. One for which you would say there is no proof. The Theist However, has interacted with God in some way. Even though they didn't see it. That just gives them faith in things unseen. I can't show you my proof. I can tell you the why of it but you of course being an anti-theist and true to your position will and even must reject such claims. I have my proof all the same though. (I'll give you this one) Theism is also illogical. Or so it appears to be. This belief comes from the heart not the head.

While I agree with your two part natural vs supernatural because we know it must be one or the other, right? You are focused on the actual creation vs. evolution not the three part belief system that goes with it.

Think of it as a road. On the right, the Theist on the left the anti-theist, and in the middle the agnostic. I suppose we could argue fine points but at the end of the day there are only 3 ways to view the existence of existence, and that's the point of the article I have linked to.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 12:36:51 AM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2749
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2013, 01:17:55 AM »
4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

You're arguing a strawman (and so does the link in your signature).  Being an atheist is more like saying "there is a lack of evidence for the existence of god-beings."  Saying "atheism is a faith" is an old and trite argument.

Dismissing god due to lack of evidence is no different than dismissing the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, since there's no evidence that those things exists.[1]

Or do you consider "atooth fairyism" and "aSanta Clausism" to be faith as well?
 1.  Outside of stories, of course.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #106 on: December 26, 2013, 03:12:38 AM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #107 on: December 26, 2013, 04:23:05 AM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Having made up one's mind about something does not mean that one is irrational or closed to reason. If someone told you that he believes that there is no life on Mars, would you assume that he must hold that belief with absolute certainty? Would you assume that he would not change his mind even if compelling evidence were found? Would you interpret his disbelief as an implicit claim of knowledge about every nook and cranny of Mars? If so, how do you possibly justify that? If not, why the double standard?

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

This has been covered here many times before, but atheism, agnosticism, theism, and gnosticism are not distinct, mutually exclusive, positions. Atheism and theism refer to a belief that there is a god or a belief that there isn't, while agnosticism and gnosticism refer to the degree of certainty in one's knowledge of said belief. They are better described as the axes of a plane, than as points along a road. The four quadrants of the plane are:

gnostic theist - I know that there is a god.
agnostic theist - I think there's a god, but I don't know for sure.
gnostic atheist - I know that there is no god.
agnostic theist - I think there's no god, but I don't know for sure.

Note that one's position on the plane can differ depending on which god is being considered. For example, one could be a gnostic atheist in regard to a specific god, but an agnostic atheist in regard to the general idea of a god.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #108 on: December 26, 2013, 07:00:35 AM »

Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.



4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position.


So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

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.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #109 on: December 26, 2013, 07:02:49 AM »

So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

Yet, by good logic, harbinger can only be an agnostic - he cannot know there is a god ; only believe there is.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #110 on: December 27, 2013, 08:50:15 PM »

So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

Yet, by good logic, harbinger can only be an agnostic - he cannot know there is a god ; only believe there is.

Kudos for the only reply I expected. logically  speaking yes. like I said though, Theism is in the heart. It's something you just know that you know.  To me it's perfectly logical. If you were saved you would know. Your Family would know as you would suddenly be a different person. My ex-agnostic sister now firmly believes in God the father and jesus Christ as there is no other way to explain what happened to me.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #111 on: December 27, 2013, 09:23:31 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?

could be? of course there COULD be. I'll say yes I believe in demonic activity.
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!
 I'm positive your government is doing things you don't know about. As an infantry soldier deployed to Iraq. I know secrets I still can't talk about as far as i know it's still classified.
 Lizard men is an interesting theory. It's origin is actually native American. It's not new. The lizard men were thought to eat humans but look just like humans. except they had six fingers. Ever investigate it or just dismiss it? what if it's the next step of evolution? Obama could well be a plant, absolutely Islamic... cyborg lizard, I doubt it.

do I argue these things in daily life? If they came up I would discuss them. I don't feel strongly enough about any of these to warrant an argument though.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #112 on: December 27, 2013, 11:09:01 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Having made up one's mind about something does not mean that one is irrational or closed to reason. If someone told you that he believes that there is no life on Mars, would you assume that he must hold that belief with absolute certainty? Would you assume that he would not change his mind even if compelling evidence were found? Would you interpret his disbelief as an implicit claim of knowledge about every nook and cranny of Mars? If so, how do you possibly justify that? If not, why the double standard?

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

This has been covered here many times before, but atheism, agnosticism, theism, and gnosticism are not distinct, mutually exclusive, positions. Atheism and theism refer to a belief that there is a god or a belief that there isn't, while agnosticism and gnosticism refer to the degree of certainty in one's knowledge of said belief. They are better described as the axes of a plane, than as points along a road. The four quadrants of the plane are:

gnostic theist - I know that there is a god.
agnostic theist - I think there's a god, but I don't know for sure.
gnostic atheist - I know that there is no god.
agnostic theist - I think there's no god, but I don't know for sure.

Note that one's position on the plane can differ depending on which god is being considered. For example, one could be a gnostic atheist in regard to a specific god, but an agnostic atheist in regard to the general idea of a god.

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: \ ?th?- ?i-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

http://i.word.com/idictionary/theism

 athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ ??-th?- ? i-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme,
from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity

http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheism

1 ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag- ?näs-tik, ?g-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agn?stos unknown,
unknowable, from a- + gn?stos known,
from gign?skein to know — more at
KNOW
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the (inexistence) of God or a god
2:aperson who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics >
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-t?- ?si-z?m\ noun

http://i.word.com/idictionary/agnosticism

now that the terms are properly defined....

I did say agnostic runs the spectrum to lean one way or the other.
By the definitions of atheist and theist you can't be both.
 A-theist means anti-theist. These are polar opposite. extreme positions. Your introduction of gnostic only demonstrates the spectrum that I have already referred to.

As for your life on Mars question. I would assume they are 100% convinced that under every rock, in every nook, in every cranny there is no life. (atheist) unless they said "....that we know of" (agnostic) It's not a double standard it's holding true to the definition of atheist. Generally speaking though I would assume they can be convinced otherwise if the proper evidence was shown. Scientist does not equal atheist.
By this analogy are you saying that you are open to the possibility that one day someone could possibly show you the evidence of God and then you would change your mind?
I'll miss your answer I'm sure. So let me respond in advance. By definition if you are open to the possibility of evidence you are are not atheist. You only lean that way.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #113 on: December 27, 2013, 11:14:41 PM »

Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.



4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position.


So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

knee jerk...

 athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ ??-th?- ? i-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme,
from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity
http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheism

How is holding to the definition a strawman or even illogical?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #114 on: December 27, 2013, 11:16:39 PM »
Because the definition itself is a strawman
https://www.google.com/#q=define+atheism

1: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #115 on: December 28, 2013, 02:56:48 AM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?