Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Chatter / Re: God's Pick?
« Last post by Nam on Today at 12:56:19 PM »
I heard his wife loves deflated balls.

-Nam
2
General Religious Discussion / Re: Satan and Genesis 3:14
« Last post by 12 Monkeys on Today at 12:50:49 PM »
JST is it your position that the starving people in underdeveloped nations just are not looking hard enough for what God leaves for them?  Is it Satan who is toying with them as they die? Is it religious dogma that makes them breed without the use of contraception? Is it that God is just in your imagination because you live in a community where you can easily provide necessities of life like clean water and food? Is it that there is no God and that's why he is ineffective unless you are working class or better?
3
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by JeffPT on Today at 12:12:31 PM »
I think adding 'natural' adds a specific qualification that means the premise must defend/explain on two fronts.
I disagree.  It actually takes away the supernatural front.  I mean, you wouldn't argue that 'everything supernatural that began to exist had a cause', would you?  How could you even speak coherently about something like that? 

The only thing that 'natural' adds is a caveat that there might be something other than the natural, but the premise isn't referring specifically to it.  I would think you'd be in favor of an argument that doesn't necessarily presuppose a non-natural world, but one that actually takes it into consideration as a possibility.

I believe the first premise in the Kalam is expressly talking about natural things.  It has to be.  I mean, what makes YOU accept that its correct?  How else would you go about gaining mass acceptance of the first premise if not for natural world observation?   What else would you observe?  It seems to me that you could get some large scale agreement on this point, but only by observation of what....?  The natural world. Obviously.   

Also, I'd like you to think about the following:
You're belief in your specific God began to exist.  What was the cause?  Was it natural or supernatural?
A Hindu's belief in their specific god(s) began to exist.  What was the cause?  Was it natural or supernatural? 

From a pure logical perspective it would muddy the argument. (You wouldn't add unnecessary qualifiers in other arguments).
On the contrary... I think it actually clarifies the argument by differentiating it from an argument that could invoke the non-natural.  Someone could reject the premise of 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' by inventing or supposing some silly, ridiculous, crazy notion about non-natural things that pop into existence without a cause or that magically always exist.  I think it's important to clarify that you're not talking about those things. 
 
Please explain how allowing the possibility of a non-natural world 'muddies the argument'?  I thought that's what you wanted.  The only world in which we can observe that everything that begins to exist has a cause is in the naturally observed world.   

Having said that, if you presume that only natural things exist, then it would not seem to add a further burden.
But adding the word 'natural' into the argument actually doesn't presume that only natural things exist. It clarifies the position further. 

Except, if the natural cause assumption would lead to infinite regression. (What cause that natural cause?)
An intellectually honest person will inevitably answer the regressed line of 'what caused that natural cause' questions with 'I don't know'.  Just because a god (any god) logically solves the problem of the infinite regress, that doesn't make it the correct solution. 

Do you really think the answer 'I don't know' is somehow an inferior answer to the infinite regress than 'magic sky person'?  I find that rather comical.

 
4
General Religious Discussion / Re: Jesus didn't pay for sins.
« Last post by Defiance on Today at 12:07:56 PM »
Here, I'll make it even easier.

God sacrificed __________ so we could be saved from him.
5
General Religious Discussion / Re: Understanding Atheism
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 12:03:10 PM »
Atheist means No God.
Agnostic means not sure, maybe.
Wrong on both counts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

You really need to learn to check things like this before you post about them.  It takes all of a couple of minutes, and it saves you the embarrassment of having someone else point out mistakes like this.

Quote from: skeptic54768
A lot of atheists are changing the definition because they view agnostics as gutless, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair did. So they make agnosticism into a definition of atheism.

If you can't say, "there is no God" for certain, then you are NOT an atheist. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
So, now you're committing the "no true atheist" fallacy?

All it takes is the belief that gods do not exist.  Certainty is not required and never has been.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Most likely the majority of atheists who think they are atheists are not really atheists. They are agnostics. This weird subset of "agnostic atheist" was recently invented out of thin air. It's too much of a contradiction. if you don't believe in something, how can you say it's unknowable? There must be something you know about it in order to say that you don't believe in God.

It's too sloppy, IMO.
I agree, your post and points were way too sloppy.  You should try better next time.

There is nothing weird about calling oneself an agnostic atheist.  It means, simply, one who does not believe in gods but who does not know that they do not exist.
6
Religion & Society / Re: atheist superhero drives local xians mad
« Last post by Defiance on Today at 12:03:03 PM »
Yeah, I'm obsessed with Darwin because the mofo had evidence to prove his claim.

Problem?
7
General Religious Discussion / Re: Understanding Atheism
« Last post by Anfauglir on Today at 12:00:31 PM »
Atheist means No God.
Agnostic means not sure, maybe.

A lot of atheists are changing the definition because they view agnostics as gutless, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair did. So they make agnosticism into a definition of atheism.....

Tell you what...when your side can get down to less than three opinions on what a "Christian" actually is, you might have a case that our TWO possible descriptions of "atheist" is a bit sloppy.  Until then....pot, meet kettle.
8
Chatter / Re: God's Pick?
« Last post by LoriPinkAngel on Today at 11:57:47 AM »
Does not matter who you think will win.  It is who God wants to win.  After all, He died for our sins and football.

Maybe God deflated the balls and made Brady insensitive to the sensation of his deflated balls so he really didn't know.
9
General Religious Discussion / Re: Understanding Atheism
« Last post by LoriPinkAngel on Today at 11:52:30 AM »
Theists and believers aren't the ones who need to prove there are gods.  The gods need to prove themselves.  Heal an amputee maybe?
10
General Religious Discussion / Re: Understanding Atheism
« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Today at 11:13:51 AM »
Most likely the majority of atheists who think they are atheists are not really atheists. They are agnostics. This weird subset of "agnostic atheist" was recently invented out of thin air. It's too much of a contradiction. if you don't believe in something, how can you say it's unknowable? There must be something you know about it in order to say that you don't believe in God.

It's too sloppy, IMO.

We all like to redefine our enemies in ways that allow us to pretend we understand them. What you've done here is natural.

I am an atheist. What I know is not the specifics of gods, but the specifics of humans. That they make shit up. And believe it. Between that propensity and the blatant lack of evidence otherwise, I am an atheist. If you guys hadn't invented theists, I wouldn't have to take my stance. But you did, so I do.

The history of humans as story tellers will follow us in to oblivion. Every story containing mass appeal will be believed by someone. The mass appeal was included to make people do that. The religious are suckers for a story that they like. Gods are not involved. So technically I'm an asilliest, or an aignorancist, or an aidioticstoriest. But atheist covers everything, and the term has been around a long time. So I make it fit.

Enjoy your religion all you want. But as long as you go so far as to presume it is true, I am forced to take an opposite stance. Were you only believing in fairies and witches in the woods, it wouldn't matter, but since people with religious beliefs get righteous on everyone's ass, since people with religious beliefs condemn, since people with religious beliefs banish, and since people with religious beliefs kill, I sort of have to speak up every now and then. Get used to it.

If there are gods as powerful as you claim, that would surprise me. But even if there are, none of them are yours. It would be impossible for an actual god to contain that many contradictions so apparent to mere humans. A real god couldn't possibly be as trite as the one you claim. It would be impossible for a real god to create beings that have infinitely more compassion than it has. That big rock he couldn't move thing would be more likely.

So I am an atheist because of humans, not because of gods. Hence my certainty.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10