| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
>>> Essentially atheism is being misunderstood here. Atheism is not a belief system or a cause, It certainly is. You exemplify it very well, as do all the other activist atheists seeking to attack, destroy, and deny or prohibit the faiths of others. >>> it is simply a person that has not been programmed into believing fairy tales about invisible people from thousands of years ago. I thought atheism was denial of God, an atheist a person who denies the existence of God, an unbeliever. And there you go with the childish insults. You're quite ignorant you know, "invisible people"?  >>> Here’s a great quote that gets to the point ‘Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. ‘ Only if the killing is not a result of practicing atheistic doctrine like Marxism, or a result of evil committed under cover of the rationale that if not found out on earth, then no consequence exists. | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
So does that qualify your belief that, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, Unicorns, dragons, and magic are not real, as a "belief system"? Is believing that Greek mythology is nothing but made up stories really a "belief system" Atheists don't "believe" there is no God. We just think there is no God. Most people don't reach the determination that there isn't a God out of "belief" they reach it based on reason and logic. And most hold out only enough doubt for the existence of god as they do for unicorns and fairies. If an atheist kills you because you believe in a God.... then yea ok then you would be killed in the name of atheism. But I don't see many non-believers going on a killing spree to end religion. They would rather you just wake up. You can cite atheist killers (Pol Pot is the only one I can think of, I think that Hitler and Stalin had more racial motives) but there have been many more killed in religious wars by religious people... It's still happening actually. (Message edited by not_purple_s2 on January 18, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
>>> Atheists don't "believe" there is no God. We just think there is no God. I think you are confused and may in fact not be an "atheist." atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. If you were to say that you suspect that there may be no God, that would not be atheism; that would be agnosticism, being unsure of the existence of God. Personally, I know there is a God, a creator of the universe and the life in it. I can prove it using logic and the laws of science. It is actually quite elementary. >>> there have been many more killed in religious wars by religious people Pure nonsense, the favorite myth of atheists and friends. Marxism is atheistic and is responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of millions. See the other thread in this section about Hitler's views on religion for more. >>> If an atheist kills you because you believe in a God.... then yea ok then you would be killed in the name of atheism. The "in the name of" is not my wording. The people, doctrines, and governments responsible for most war have been those holding to atheistic views, namely Marxism (religion is the opiate of the masses). | ||
| Blackm2 |
I'll play "devils advocate". I would like to hear the elementary proof using logic and the laws of science please. | ||
| Moxnix |
Disbelief is a preference. | ||
| Slaughter |
Agnostic: an Atheist without the courage of his convictions. | ||
| Jon |
Atheism is a belief system and a cause. It's convenient. But you have to step over a matter from no matter, energy from no energy, life from no life start ...from nothing with no energy. Sorry. Not even the spaghetti monster could pull that off, random exponential whatever-ism notwhithstanding. | ||
| Aesquire |
I disagree, an agnostic embraces uncertainty. At least doubt offers the possibility of belief. But if you want to think it wishy washy, that's ok too. I don't have any elementary proof. logic can't prove a thing. You can observe that the beauty of the universe seems governed by rules, and call them natural laws. You can observe that the leaves on a tree and the branchings of nerves etc. are described by elegant mathematics. Also that the physical laws you deduce from observation make this the perfect environment, on a subatomic level, for exactly our kind of life. For the underlying Why? that is so, your guess is as good as mine...... and we have faith. My inclination is to the kiss principal. A few basic truths, in order of how much I deeply believe them, from Robert Heinlein. One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.) Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long] ( A writer who questioned the concepts of religion. I don't know his personal faith. He's gone now, and people take quotes, many from fictional societies & characters he has written about and accused him of being fascist, or athiest, etc...... I think that's kinda dumb. Who accuses Tom Clancy of being a CIA agent?) | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, >>> Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid. When a father or mother witness their infant son or daughter harming themselves, do they not hurt? Do parents not mandate rules intended to prevent their children from harming themselves? Why would our heavenly father not likewise be hurt to see us harming ourselves and mandate rules to prevent it? Seems to me he would be. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. Try the parent/child analogy on the above and I think you'll see why blasphemy is something to be opposed. You'll have to operate from the assumption that blasphemy is indeed "a contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God", and that God indeed exists and is our creator. Certainly we can see that children perpetrating a contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing against their loving parents is something rightly opposed. It would represent children denying the authority of their father and mother, which would ultimately be very harmful to the children. If God exists, then to deny his authority is harmful to us, thus hurtful to a God who loves us, thus a sin. | ||
| Blake |
1. The universe (matter and energy), and time itself, had a beginning. Along with the math proof (see Hawking) of the theory of the hot big bang (originally proposed by a Catholic priest), an ever accelerating expansion of the universe proves this. 2. Matter exists. 3. Energy exists. 4. Life cannot arise from non-life. 5. Life exists. The above are scientific facts known today; they are irreconcilable without an outside influence, a creator. How might a creator make matter from nothing? Simple. Divide nothing into two opposite forms of mutually annihilating matter, matter and anti-matter (electron and positron for instance, or proton and anti-proton). It would just take a LOT of energy. If you are interested in the science refuting the idea of abiogenesis (life from non-life), see the following: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible When we observe and consider the universe, our planet, life and all its perfection and complexity, DNA, human nature, the proof of a creator is there, everywhere. How can we know when/if something is created versus a random accident of nature? How do we recognize a prehistoric arrowhead among random stones and rock? We can recognize an intentionally created object so easily, but become confused when the creation is infinitely more complex, perfect, and beautiful? Statistics are tough to refute. | ||
| Blackm2 |
That isn't proof of an existence of a "man in the sky" through the laws of science. That article is merely a contortion of what is known, and more importantly what is NOT known to benefit this outfits(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=all&ID=) belief system. In Hawkings earlier books, he did not discount that there was a God. However his most recent quote on the subject: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions." | ||
| Jon |
That one's man religion is another mans belly laugh means nothing. Opinions alone do not constitute evidence; someone is right and someone is wrong. I've never been one to trumpet the beauty of the universe as evidence of God, but rather my perception of beauty...as better than ugly as an evidence. My ability to judge, etc. There is so much before us and underneath us to point us to God. It takes a lot of imagination and blind faith to see the evidence and not see God. | ||
| Davegess |
Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe that the Bible is THE holy book. Just because you are a Christian does not mean you believe what the Fundamentalists or Evangelicals believe. The Bible is cool but it is the work of man and has been revised over the centuries. Heck even the basic believe of WHAT Jesus is was not a settled issue until the 4th or 5th century AD. Even know the most basic of Christian belief; exactly how Christ is God and man, is not the same within the Christian churches. The Egyptian Coptic are pretty far from the Roman Catholics from what I understand although I must admit that reading theology makes my eyes water  What I am trying to say is that there is a great wide world of DIFFERENT ways to believe in God and the moral codes that derives from this can be very different. An Italian Catholics view of adultery is very different than that of a Baptist in the US Bible belt. Who is correct? | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
Blake, If there was a creator how could there be nothing at the start? Obviously there was something: the Creator. All creationism runs into the same wall as science: where did this first something come from? Science takes it back to the Big Bang (the popular view today) Religion just takes it back to God. (Insert which ever deity you want) You ask "what started life since it hasn't been proven that it can occur spontaneously?" Then I simply ask you "where did God come from?" I'm sure the answer is that He is eternal and has always existed. I venture it is possible that matter/energy is likewise also eternal and has always existed in some form and that life is just a combination of matter and energy that, like so many things, we don't fully understand. Hell, I even hold out the possibility that universe as we know it could have been "created" by extra-dimensional forces. However, I don't think this scenario would resemble anything like what any of the religions of the world believe. | ||
| Slaughter |
Jon - unfortunately that "someone is right and someone is wrong" - is simply YOUR belief. Faith is not and never has been a zero-sum game. Still waiting for THE answer to present itself on a sportbike BBS... or a water stain under a bridge or an image seared into the grilled cheese. | ||
| Aesquire |
I missed my chance to buy a Battlestar Galactica Toaster. Darn. ( had a setting to burn a Cylon into your toast ) I stand by the Belly laugh quote. maybe your faith is "fairly rational" and does not require funny hats or rubbing blue mud on your belly, but some religions are freaking hilarious. Funny does not mean wrong, just funny. You don't like that someone laughs at your faith? ( what ever it is ) Too bad, get a thicker skin, or grow up. Depending on your belief, some part of it may be sad, touching or laughable. Many Churches have funny hats to show how important the leaders are. Other faiths require "odd" things of the members. ( odd varies with time, place and culture. Eskimo's rub noses since freezing together is not wise ) Pray 17 times a day in a purple diaper? Ritual symbolic cannibalism? Won't eat goats? Chicken? Cows? Demand that all cows be killed so their farts don't make the Earth catch fire? Lots of funny in religion. Ask George Carlin's ghost. Blake, I'm pretty comfortable with blasphemy being a purely human construct and very highly abused. As a rule it's purpose is obvious. No one may talk about the religion being wrong. Even as we speak, people are being murdered for that "crime". look at Pakistan.... http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=4687 4 Many other places too. If you must get my stake ready, make it a long one. Indecent exposure? Purely cultural. In the extreme it's a slave owning screwed up thing where no other man can see your property. Often explained as keeping passions from becoming inflamed. Bull. Now, I'm not going nude, and if you are ugly, please don't either. But Milla Jovovich or Angelina Jolie can go nude in front of me all day. ( sure my passion will be inflamed....I'm an adult. ) Children don't care about skin until we pass our hangups on to them. Like racism or class hatred. | ||
| Blake |
>>> That isn't proof of an existence of a "man in the sky" through the laws of science. Only if you reject logic. At one time, "A" did not exist. True. "A" cannot create itself. True. Yet "A" exists. True "A" was created. Truth. A creator of "A" exists or existed. Truth "man in the sky"? What a petty belittling way to refer to the creator of the universe and life in it. Curtis (Not Purple S2), >>> If there was a creator how could there be nothing at the start? Obviously there was something: the Creator. If we discount the existence of fifth or sixth dimensions, it is impossible to comprehend, rightly so. In our four dimensions, it is indeed impossible. Science itself has shown that with those additional dimensions and the capability to exist in all of them as opposed to our mere four, then the concept of God is perfectly reasonable. A being capable of existing in all five or six--I don't recall the number exactly--would be able to be everywhere at all times, yes even outside our own known four dimensional universe. The Star Trek folks tried to illustrate the concept. They called the being the "Q". Steve, >>> unfortunately that "someone is right and someone is wrong" - is simply YOUR belief. Faith is not and never has been a zero-sum game. Is it not true that the universe and life are either the result of intentional creative effort or not. Both cannot be true. Both cannot be false. Only one may be true. | ||
| Moxnix |
That's it. There is only one truth. To repeat from last year: I've got it. Everyone can have it. Until someone wants to know it, they can shut up. Or, come to a forum and deny it. | ||
| Blackm2 |
What you presented is not logic. It is YOUR logic, which like the Institute for Creation Research, you are bending to fit your agenda. The only thing that is petty is this entire thread. Is this subject matter really required in a motorcycle forum? It would behoove all to remove this thread and start a separate section on Badweb strictly for religion and politics for those that wish to engage. It is all quite ridiculous as no one changes anyones mind. | ||
| Jon |
Slaughter, There is no graduating truth. My statement that someone is wrong and someone is right is pointed to the reality of God. To wax imaginative or sarcastic about yet to be understood bubbles of non-zero sum game possibilities within which the non-God truth is hidden don't work. There is only one set of realities. This one. In this world, the evidence is in. | ||
| Blake |
I had my mind changed. Logic is logic. Not mine or anyone's, it just is. Truth is truth. If the logic is false, then refute it. Why so troubled? | ||
| Reindog |
Blake, You stated axioms and your logic flows from those axioms. Your truth is your truth. YMMV from someone else who starts with a different set of axioms. Heisenberg already showed that absolute truth is unknowable but this shouldn't stop us from pursuing the truth and it always manages to escapes across the county line when we think we have apprehended the scoundrel. OK...I have started this post twenty times but have always deleted them before hitting the send button. Is it time to start a 20-part thread calling me a "blaspheming atheist"? This WHOLE subdirectory is well intentioned but some see this as disrespectful and attacking which violates Badweb rules. I can't get past the name of these threads without feeling remorse for Badweb. Please consider renaming them to that your audience doesn't enter without the feeling like a vengeful sledgehammer is being employed rather than a "thoughtful" discussion. Maybe it is so, but it don't smell so. Deleting rather benign posts is rather like the Civility that is being promoted by our Dear Leaders in Washington.  | ||
| Slaughter |
Do not confuse truth with faith. Sometimes same-same, sometimes not. So I still want a show of hands of those whose faith has been changed by discussions on the 'net. We're wasting Badweb Bandwidth. I feel somehow dirty for being sucked down into these discussions. | ||
| Reindog |
Generally, I enjoy these discussions on the net. I never expect instantaneous change as it usually happens at a glacial pace. But it can and does happen. I have an acquired aversion to Liberalism but reading people like Dave Gess often reminds me that sometimes I need to take a moment and ponder. The differences in Badwebbers generally makes me better. Could I go to another website? Yeah, but I am generally too lazy to do so. Although I have no problem with religious or political debate, I find this current subdirectory troubling and harmful to Badweb. It is not necessarily well intentioned and there is no need for a finger jabbing 20 part Massacree. Back on topic.....The Universe might be an eternal, self perpetuating thingness that oscillates through the discontinuity that we believe the Big Bang emanated from. The thingness itself, not some Old Dude with a White Beard, might be called God. It just is and that in itself, is beautiful. I am grateful to God/Universe that I have somehow managed to score a ticket to the Big Game for a flicker of a femtosecond. It is a good game. | ||
| Blackm2 |
LOL, Thingness. I like that Tom. | ||
| Blake |
Tom, >>> I find this current subdirectory troubling and harmful to Badweb. It is not necessarily well intentioned and there is no need for a finger jabbing 20 part Massacree. Troubling and harmful? How so? I sure do appreciate your take on the topic. I can see your point. Not sure after reviewing Dave H's instigating commentary that he doesn't consider it as a badge of honor. Surely an atheist cannot be offended by being called a "blasphemer". It's a pity he's not up to defending his statements. Same old story, angry religion hating atheist outrageously mis-characterizes Christianity, the Bible, and God, then is upset when called on it. Considering the sum of human knowledge, everyone on this forum is more ignorant than not. As a combined group however, we are less ignorant, which is the core reason for a "discussion" forum, no? Anyone who is offended for being recognized as ignorant on a certain subject, is not someone looking for truth. My view for me personally and others is that blatant malicious falsehood should be met with intellectual massacre. If truth is the goal, falsehood must be identified and removed from consideration. My intent for these threads was to escape the mind numbing convolution (for me at least) of the original prior discussion initiated by Dave H. where a myriad of topics were all thrown into very lengthy posts. I wanted to make it possible to discuss each specific issue in its own individual thread, something that Dave H. himself had suggested. I'd also really appreciate keeping the discussion on the serious side. I guess I should have made that request up front. I appreciate the intended levity offered by some, mostly. Seeing Jesus depicted as a brain-eating zombie, not so much. I'm not calling for the murder of the cartoonist; I just don't care to see that displayed in a forum for which I am responsible. It's all too fashionable in America these days to denigrate and belittle the beliefs of Christians. I'm sorry, not on BadWeB. If that offends or irritates some, so be it. Frankly, I'd rather maintain that standard and have just ten active contributors here than not maintain it and have 10,000. Is that not in keeping with the very heart of our rules here? Popping into a topic and launching into an indignant rant maligning Christianity, the Bible, and God is about as divisive as it gets in my view. You might as well be insulting and bearing false witness against my parents. How would we tolerate that kind of commentary here? I guess what I'm saying is that if those looking to denigrate Christianity, the Bible, and God cannot stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If anyone imagines they ought to be permitted to drop a bunch of incendiary bombs then plead mercy when met with rebuttal, well, not here amigo. All that said, what would you prefer we title the parent subtopic to these threads? >>> The Universe might be an eternal, self perpetuating thingness that oscillates through the discontinuity that we believe the Big Bang emanated from. I think it would take a heck of a lot more faith to believe that than anything else I know. Besides, wasn't that theory disproved years ago? Hawking is funny. When he proved that time and our universe did indeed have a beginning, he was actually trying to show that the universe was "an eternal, self perpetuating thingness that oscillates" but the math wouldn't work. His grad students kept failing to generate the mathematical proof that he was sure he could find. Instead they found the exact opposite, that time and our universe did indeed have a beginning. But since that didn't fit his own personal view (God is math? ), he generated new ancillary theories to try to work around it. None of them have been proved. He's gone from mathematics to personal belief agenda. What a pity. Coffee is good. | ||
| Reindog |
Blake, I understand your point and appreciate your zeal. Badweb for a large part consists of Buell lovin' right of center people. Some, including yourself, hold deeply held religious beliefs. It is entirely OK to not be right-of-center nor religious and still post points of views while the motorcycle battery gets charged in the garage. However, there is a boundary which means different things to different custodians. It is just plain stupid to come to Badweb with six-shooters blazing that Socialism is better than mother's milk or that Christianity lobotimizes people. It is just plain dumb and I understand that taking an extreme position will be met with a less than friendly attitude. There is a finger poking in the chest feel about the way this thread is constructed. I would minimize the challenging of SuperDuper as he is only the catalyst. I might suggest removal "blaspheming atheist" be removed even though it is quite appropriate in your eyes. Perhaps "Atheism Misses the Point" or something de-personalized would be better. SuperDuper obviously put a bee in your bonnet. Just how much coffee did you drink when you constructed this discussion framework? | ||
| Blake |
Something struck me this morning as I was watching Darrell stalk a squirrel in the back yard. It seems to me that life in general is one giant challenge, a trial or test you might say. Survival of the fittest is life's trial that in general tends to separate those that are, may we say "deserving", of surviving and enjoying the beauty of existence, versus those who do not measure up. That is generally true of all life on Earth and is the core concept of "natural selection", yes? That is how the physical realm maintains its integrity, its health, its long term existence, yes? Life that is never born, cannot live. Life that is born without the ability to sustain itself does not live and thrive. Life that is born but behaves too recklessly (poor choices) does not live and thrive. Life that chooses poorly may survive but endures much suffering and does not thrive. If there is a spiritual life, why would we not believe that it too relies on its own version of natural selection for its ongoing integrity and health, so that where those who fail to be born of the spirit, or are ill-equipped to survive spiritually, or choose very poorly are cut from the heard or suffer for their choices? Ever hear the stories of people who were clinically dead but were revived? I believe what Jesus said. | ||
| Blake |
Not because I need comfort or can't stand the idea of blanking upon death. Nothing frightening there at all. I believe based on the truth that I've found in what I've studied, and what I find at the core of my being. So you're admonishing me to turn the other cheek?  The "runs away" is definitely a poke. |
