Trouble With Atheism

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Am I even allowed to say soccer is gay???

Well, gay has 2 dictionary definitions and one slang definition.

Happy
Homosexual
Undesirable (slang)

"Soccer is happy" makes no sense to me
"Soccer is homosexual" again makes no sense becuase it has no gender
"Soccer is undersirable" does make sense, and I think many people would get your message, but it may be just as easy to say "Soccer is undesirable" and avoid offending anyone. I'm not a language nazi, so you do whatever you want.

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.

great minds think alike, eh? we're debating a subject no one can prove right or wrong. i believe God exists because i experienced life after death; therefore i conclude God must exist. i believe i felt him. his presence.
everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. that's cool. it's what seperates humans from the other animals. i like it that way. i'd hate it if everyone was the same.
i find it humorous to debate God with an athiest. i didn't open the superhero thread because they don't exist. but then that's my train of thought and i'm a flawed human.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't deny the possibility of the teacup orbitting the sun, or the flying spaghetti monster. But I don't believe either of them exist.

For example, a theist could say "It is possible God does not exist, but I believe he does." as opposed to an atheist "It is possible God does exist, but I believe he does not."

i'd never say God may not exist and i studied theology in a catholic college prep.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

great minds think alike, eh? we're debating a subject no one can prove right or wrong. i believe God exists because i experienced life after death; therefore i conclude God must exist. i believe i felt him. his presence.
everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. that's cool. it's what seperates humans from the other animals. i like it that way. i'd hate it if everyone was the same.
i find it humorous to debate God with an athiest. i didn't open the superhero thread because they don't exist. but then that's my train of thought and i'm a flawed human.

If you remove blood from the brain the individual experiences a psychotic episode. This is why I don't believe that your experience of life after death, was in-fact what you experienced at all.

There are many things that separate humans from other animals, but never-the-less we are also animals and share many commonalities with them. For example, our genome is mostly identical to the fruitfly's genome.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i'd never say God may not exist and i studied theology in a catholic college prep.

Are you saying that catholicism doesn't consider the philosophical conclusion that the existence or non-existence of a God is beyond our capable knowledge?

he still stands

onelongsong wrote:

anarchy does not exist in the political realm. look to history to see what happens under marshall law or an anarchist rule. what happens? people form groups of others who believe the same as them. (just like the world forms different groups making different religions.) if anarchy does exist; then my life is anarchy. i answer to no man; i do what i want when i want; and my laws are my own. many conform to current law but they are my laws. for example; pot is legal in my world; but murder isn't. i don't assemble nor do i preach anarchy. i live my life and don't bother anyone that doesn't bother me.

however; an athiet preaches. not true athiest. but there are no true athiests. if God doesn't exist to them; a cross on a public building means nothing to them. the 10 commandments in from of a state capital may as well be scribble. it should mean nothing to them. if they are insulted by a cross then they are insulted by every cross. you can't have it both ways.
most importantly; an athiest would never even open a religious thread. an athiest who posts on a religious thread is preaching their beliefs. and doesn't that sound like religion?
you say athiest don't gather; then why did they gather to respond to this thread?
athiesm is only a persons confusion to existence. it is their attempt to find the answers to why we're here. they don't believe in God; they believe in something else.

it doesn't seem that you read my post very clearly...

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.

Explain how God is a mathematical certainty?

I believe this debate goes as follows...

"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."

"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"

"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."

"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."

Round and round we go.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Explain how God is a mathematical certainty?

I believe this debate goes as follows...

"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."

"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"

"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."

"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."

Round and round we go.

hehehhe hahahhahaha hohohohohohho...

nope, nothing like that at all.

why are you asking me, anyway? you're the smart one.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Explain how God is a mathematical certainty?

I believe this debate goes as follows...

"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."

"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"

"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."

"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."

Round and round we go.

alternative reply:

grasshoppah, you come velly fah, and then you fuck it up.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

hehehhe hahahhahaha hohohohohohho...

nope, nothing like that at all.

why are you asking me, anyway? you're the smart one.

Because you said it and I don't understand what you mean.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I like the people who think something can be created out of thin air. two possibilities exist: it either just existed in the first place or it didn't, and never will. Something can't just pop out of nowhere and make make something out of nothing. It's a paradox.

it's folly..

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Because you said it and I don't understand what you mean.

Well, maybe you should think about it. God thinks you should.

Bwahahahaa.

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I like the people who think something can be created out of thin air. two possibilities exist: it either just existed in the first place or it didn't, and never will. Something can't just pop out of nowhere and make make something out of nothing. It's a paradox.

it's folly..

The paradox is either that something existed out of nothing, which raises the question of what the first something was. Or the paradox could be infinite causality. If we say that everything that exists has a cause, and look at Big Bang theory, what caused the Big Bang? The universe in it's previous state? Then we are looking at a Causal Loop theory where the end of causation is the begining of causation, or the end of time, is the begining of time. It's almost worth arguing that the causal loop theory is the least paradoxical.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Well, maybe you should think about it. God thinks you should.

Bwahahahaa.

I think I've just made a pretty good argument why God isn't mathemically necissary.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If god is an all encompassing bigger higher power then outerspace is God.

How much did they know about the space and it's phenomena when the bible was written? You would think the entire bible would make reference to it often. Also why is hell considered down and heaven up then ? There is no up and down in space.

It's probably all a nice fairytale...

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

I think I've just made a pretty good argument why God isn't mathemically necissary.

well, it's all in the interpretation, as always.

onelongsong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I like the people who think something can be created out of thin air. two possibilities exist: it either just existed in the first place or it didn't, and never will. Something can't just pop out of nowhere and make make something out of nothing. It's a paradox.

it's folly..

science has created life or "artificial life" if you prefer; in a pietre dish. how do you explain that?

onelongsong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If god is an all encompassing bigger higher power then outerspace is God.

How much did they know about the space and it's phenomena when the bible was written? You would think the entire bible would make reference to it often. Also why is hell considered down and heaven up then ? There is no up and down in space.

It's probably all a nice fairytale...

for the same reason the 619 commandments are called the 10 commandments. it's easier for people of that time to comprehend.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

for the same reason the 619 commandments are called the 10 commandments. it's easier for people of that time to comprehend.

When are we going to get a revised edition that's easier for people of our time to comprehend?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

onelongsong wrote:

science has created life or "artificial life" if you prefer; in a pietre dish. how do you explain that?

There's no such thing as artificial life. All matter is alive. There is no point of creation in the ultimate universe. It just always was like it is now. Energy is never lost, i.e. there is nowhere else for it to go except "here". That I believe proves the concept.