31

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FEr Question

« on: January 08, 2008, 08:04:54 PM »

That is flood control, intended to prevent users from overloading the boards with large numbers of posts in a very short period. You cannot remove it.

32

Flat Earth Q&A / MOVED: MAC VS LINUX VS NIEL DIAMOND

« on: January 08, 2008, 08:03:46 PM »

This topic has been moved to Complete Nonsense.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19014.0

33

The Lounge / Re: New Hampshire Democratic Primary Predictions

« on: January 08, 2008, 07:48:53 PM »

And Ron Paul sucks.

You rock.

Quoted for Truth.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Islam

« on: January 08, 2008, 07:19:37 PM »

Christianity is hardly any better.

You know, "murder is not murder if it's the killing of homosexuals" etc etc

Z fails again.

Old Testament. Revoked. You know that whole "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing?

Murder of homosexuals isn't commanded in the New Testament, but it's certainly still a sin- see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1:24-27.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 08, 2008, 06:50:11 PM »

Redefining terms so that they bear no resemblance to the commonly accepted meaning is a great way to win an argument.

Apparently you have trouble recognizing sarcasm.

Would you please explain just how Christian scripture does not meet the definition of mythological that Space Cowgirl provided from Merriam Webster?

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable allegory 2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b: an unfounded or false notion 3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence4: the whole body of myths

That God be proven fictional is not required. A host of stories exist that have never been and can never be disproven, but you do not dispute their mythological nature. No, it is only when the myth is one you personally believe that you take issue with the term.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ontological Arguments For The Existence of God

« on: January 06, 2008, 08:03:45 PM »

I mean that unicorns are complex in having a material body.

Why should that kind of complexity be singled out? The God of the Bible is complex by self-description, and so is not perfect.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 06, 2008, 08:00:23 PM »

Althalus, I suppose we should all stop referring to Zeus as mythical, since none of us have proven he isn't real.

I've already addressed this, climb mount Olympus.

Ah, but it's unfair to take Greek myths literally, Mount Olympus is obviously a metaphor. 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, you don't get to have a double-standard. The Bible says your God lives in the sky. If there were two billion pagans in the world today, don't you think theologians would be interpreting Mount Olympus to mean a supernatural plane of existence? If the fact that Genesis' account of creation is simply incorrect doesn't falsify the rest of the Bible, why should the fact that the gods don't live on a physical mountain on Earth (the mountain called Mount Olympus, of course, wasn't named until a couple thousand years after the myths were written) falsify Zeus?

What events in history does a non-interventioning god create? I mean all types and concepts of god, not just religious ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God#Metaphysics_and_Philosophy

In the post that quote was referencing, I was speaking about religious gods, however, a Deist god presumably would leave some footprints in the Big Bang. Even if not, the chief issue is that all concepts of God, religious, intervening, or otherwise, make objective truth-claims about the nature of reality, whether that reality be natural or supernatural, claims without a shred of evidence presented in support.

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 06, 2008, 07:42:30 PM »

Althalus, I suppose we should all stop referring to Zeus as mythical, since none of us have proven he isn't real.

I've already addressed this, climb mount Olympus.

Ah, but it's unfair to take Greek myths literally, Mount Olympus is obviously a metaphor. 

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 06, 2008, 07:29:44 PM »

Althalus, I suppose we should all stop referring to Zeus as mythical, since none of us have proven he isn't real.

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 04, 2008, 08:09:52 PM »

Cowgirl summed up very well how this discussion has proceeded- Althalus, your entire argument has consisted of bickering over semantics. You refuse to accept common definitions of terms, and do not even attempt to back up your claim that your God is less improbable in some significant way than beings or events that most people today acknowledge as mythical.

41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: January 03, 2008, 11:34:16 PM »

You fail again. God is a metaphysical concept, not a mythological being. For god to be a mythical being he would have to have a billy-goat beard and shoot fire out his ass or some shit like that. God has no corporeal body.

Ah, ok. So Jesus, having a corporeal body, is a mythical being, then. Or maybe not? Perhaps Zeus is a metaphysical concept as well? Or did you mean that God in general is a metaphysical concept, but your God in specific is a mythical being? Or do you mean Zeus is a mythical being but your God is a metaphysical concept?

mythological

  • adjective 1 relating to or found in mythology; mythical. 2 fictitious.

mythical

  • adjective 1 occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales. 2 fictitious.

 I don't see how having a corporeal body is a requirement. You may object that your God is not fictitious, but I may in turn object that Zeus is not fictitious. Would you object to labeling of Zeus a mythological being? Yet your God has no more evidence of his existence than Zeus. Both are certainly characteristic of myths; your God is similar in many ways to other ancient Gods that, I think, you would not hesitate to label as myths.

The cosmic egg is only matter. Why would all the matter that makes up the universe remain motionless for eternity then suddenly move. The cosmic egg would need a mover, it does not answer primum movens at all. It is impossible to reach the beginning of the universe purely using scientific reasoning as there would be an infinite regression of causes.

Um, no. The cosmic egg was not matter. Matter did not form until a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

Yes, of course you have an infinite regression, unless you assume a first cause in place 'before' time. The cosmic egg is a possibility, God is another. Stephen Hawking speculated that time is simply our perception of the direction of increasing universal entropy. In that case, time would not have existed before the Bang. Either candidate for primum movens could have existed forever 'before' time. The God explanation, however, requires unnecessary multiplication of entities. You ask why would the cosmic egg remain motionless for eternity then explode- I might as well ask why God would remain motionless for eternity then create the universe. We don't know, in either case. Your folly lies in claiming this lack of knowledge as warrant for belief in your God.

He was using one of many definition of magic. If you consider anything mysterious magic then dark matter is magic. The point is he is trying to associate god with the illusions you might see at birthday parties.

I don't consider anything mysterious magic. I consider anything with magical abilities magic. God's abilities clearly fit that particular definition of magic. You may take issue with that definition, but it is childish to take issue with my labeling of 'God' as magical when such a label is perfectly consistent with this very common usage of the term.

LOL, no. Non-literalists agree on the majority of scripture, including what is metaphor.

Having spoken with many Christians on the subject, some of whom were literalists, some non-literalists, many of them professors of theology or philosophy, that is simply false. The range and variety of disagreement is vast. Tell me, is this passage meant to be taken literally or metaphorically:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

No limitations at all!

You would have done well to quote the previous verses of James 4, which show that it is far from clear that the above-quoted verse refers to prayer at all:

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

So you don't have any rational besides labeling them all 'absurd', bravo.

They are all absurd because they all speak of events in the history of the material world that current science deems extremely unlikely (read: so unlikely that probability should forbid them from having happened in the lifetime of the universe), without providing a shred of evidence to back up these claims, and demanding that they be taken at face value simply on their say-so.

Oh, and it's 'rationale', by the way.

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God Sucks!!!

« on: December 31, 2007, 09:08:23 PM »

Locked. There are plenty of religious debate topics you may join if you wish to engage in substantive discussion. However, if all you intend to do is hurl needless invective you will be banned.

43

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 31, 2007, 09:06:32 PM »

This would mean that god has magical ability, not that god is magic.

I fail to see the distinction.

You also didn't justify your use of "sky-being".

People often speak of 'the sky' when they mean space, 'the heavens'. As the term implies, people once thought the heavens actually contained Heaven, God's abode- that God lived literally up in the sky somewhere.

grants his followers' every wish

Wrong.

Uh, no. The New Testament is incredibly specific about this. Anything asked in Jesus' name will be granted. There are literally no limits:

Do you even know how poetics work? You ask in Jesus' name so it has to be appropriate to what Jesus taught.

But that's not what the Bible says. As I said, John is incredibly specific. There are no caveats, no clarifiers; according to John, believe in Jesus and your prayers will be answered. And anyway, these are all only minor quibbles that don't support your claim- that God is less improbable than other mythical beings in a significant way.

Belief in Jesus is required for eternal life. That is not all that is required. People can call themselves Christian but be practically atheist, living as though god does not exist.

But then they wouldn't meet the requirement of believing in Jesus.

You really don't know anything about Christianity, every major branch of Christianity would disagree with your over-simplification of prayer and salvation, so you must be wrong. Most modern "atheists" use a term different from the original. They call themselves atheist because they want to distance themselves as much as possible from theism and belief in god.

I know plenty about Christianity, from having read the Bible in its entirety in one translation and much of it in several others, from having read several of the influential scholarly works on its interpretation, and from having spoken with professors of religion from several universities at length on the subject.

Of course modern atheists use a term different from the original, because the original was a blanket pejorative religious sects often hurled at other sects regardless of whether it was an accurate descriptor It originates from the Greek 'atheos', which means literally 'without god'. Christians called pagans atheist; pagans returned the favor. It was only in the last two or three centuries that most of the people on the receiving end of this pejorative actually were godless. The term was rendered effectively meaningless by its original users. So what's the problem with reverting to its literal meaning, which is sufficiently general to include basically all those who call themselves atheists in the modern world?

Even if you find the Christian god a ridiculous concept there are innumerable different concepts of god. Do you have a rational to reject them all?

They are all roughly equally absurd, but more importantly not one of them has a shred of evidence to support it.

There are several present theories to what the universe was like previous to the big bang. One is that the BB was caused by two "branes" colliding, resulting in a massive spike in temperature that formed matter. About three theories were described in an old issue of New Scientist that I read a while ago, defiantly worth a read if you can find it.

I know the article you're talking about. Most of these are untested offshoots of string theory, which is itself untested. String theory is very elegant and would have massive explanatory power if satisfactorily demonstrated, but at present we can't conceive of any methodology for testing it which is within reach of current technology.

As far as primum movens, in what way is God as prime mover a more logically satisfying answer than the 'cosmic egg' as prime mover?

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 30, 2007, 12:02:35 PM »

A magic sky-being

Wrong.

Magic
noun 1. The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

I'd say your God fits this definition pretty well.

grants his followers' every wish

Wrong.

Uh, no. The New Testament is incredibly specific about this. Anything asked in Jesus' name will be granted. There are literally no limits:

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.   
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.   
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

grants them eternal life

Sometimes.[.quote]

Always:

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

John's just full of these!

That's less improbable than a horse with a horn?

A unicorn is magical. Do I really need to explain primum movens to you? If you believe god is impossible, you are atheist. If you believe god is improbable you are agnostic.

You really don't know anything about atheism. There's nothing in the word itself that implies your definition, and very many famous atheists are agnostic by your definition. So maybe your definition is wrong?

More on this later.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 29, 2007, 10:11:03 PM »

Then they are agnostic.

No, unless you are agnostic about fairies, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or teapots orbiting Jupiter.

Fairies are impossible, unicorns are impossible, flying spaghetti monsters are impossible, teapots orbiting Jupiter are impossible. An impossibility is an extreme improbability. People are atheist if they believe god is impossible or there is a .999... chance of god not existing (such a chance is an impossibility). These things are impossible, god resembles none of them. If you self identify as atheist you are almost 100% likely to be agnostic (not believing in god and not believing in the non-existence of god) instead.

A magic sky-being who grants his followers' every wish and grants them eternal life? That's less improbable than a horse with a horn?

Has anyone read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

I just got it for Christmas, I've been immersed in it for a few days now. Dawkins does a pretty good job of convincing the reader that there is no God.

You could fly an airbus through the holes in his arguments.

Mind providing examples?

46

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 29, 2007, 12:07:16 AM »

Then they are agnostic.

No, unless you are agnostic about fairies, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or teapots orbiting Jupiter.

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 25, 2007, 05:46:42 PM »

Atheism is also a belief based on lack of evidence.

You sure about that now?

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic

« on: December 24, 2007, 07:47:45 PM »

This site is definitely biased against the atheist. Certain questions really had no options even close to my beliefs and the results page implies that the more spiritual you are, the better.

Agreed.  Question 14 I was thinking 'Wtf...'

This is true; on many of the questions the only atheist choice involved making statements of certainty we atheists have no business making, stuff like "I know there is no God" or "I know there's nothing after death" (I don't remember the questions exactly). I don't know any of these things. I believe my worldview is superior to that of most theists largely because I don't claim false certainty in these matters, claiming to know that which I cannot possibly know.

49

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 24, 2007, 07:43:12 PM »

Well, basicaly, monotheism wins, I guess.

The implausibility and unprovability of EngineerII's preferred answer doesn't make your answer any less implausible or unprovable. The correct answer to "What caused/was there before the Big Bang?" is simply "We. Don't. Know." The current lack of a scientific answer in no way warrants accepting a non-scientific one.

50

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic

« on: December 23, 2007, 10:24:38 PM »

1.    Secular Humanism  (100%)
2.    Nontheist (86%)
3.    Unitarian Universalism (86%)
4.    Theravada Buddhism (68%)
5.    Liberal Quakers (54%)
6.    Neo-Pagan (40%)
7.    Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (34%)
8.    New Age (19%)
9.    Taoism (14%)
10.    Bahá'í Faith (13%)
11.    Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (13%)
12.    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (13%)
13.    Eastern Orthodox (13%)
14.    Hinduism (13%)
15.    Islam (13%)
16.    Jainism (13%)
17.    Jehovah's Witness (13%)
18.    Mahayana Buddhism (13%)
19.    New Thought (13%)
20.    Orthodox Judaism (13%)
21.    Orthodox Quaker (13%)
22.    Reform Judaism (13%)
23.    Roman Catholic (13%)
24.    Scientology (13%)
25.    Sikhism (13%)
26.    Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (10%)
27.    Seventh Day Adventist (6%)

On the second quiz, I got 34: Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 23, 2007, 10:30:56 AM »

It was always there, of course. A long line of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

What makes you think it needs an "origin"?

So just one question. What's it like to be extremely wrong and not know it?

You don't know that he's wrong, either. You may claim to 'know' the answer through your belief, but you're claiming knowledge you have no real way of knowing.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 22, 2007, 07:25:11 PM »

Elaborate?

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 22, 2007, 07:11:29 PM »

Lets re ask you the same question in a different form then:

"What was the stimulus for the initial big bang?"

I don't believe we can go back that far.  You'll never know.

Which, of course, doesn't make inserting an answer such as God even slightly more reasonable.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 21, 2007, 10:07:04 PM »

If that's not Heaven, what is?

When Romeo said "Juliet is the sun", did he mean he could feel the Solar Wind emanating from her skin?

There's a difference between being poetic, and purposely obfuscating words.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 20, 2007, 08:00:35 PM »

That is an ignorant sentence. A theory explains what happened but does not explain how. And i believe biologists have proven the theory of evolution. With the fossil record, vestigial structures, and similarities between species.

A theory tries to explain how and why something happens.

Depending on the meaning of 'why'. Science doesn't attempt to answer philosophical 'why' questions, which in my opinion are usually meaningless anyway.

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 14, 2007, 07:35:08 PM »

But then, if someone is unconvinced of a Deity being present, and affecting its influence, does that not mean that said Deity is, in fact, not able to prove that he, she, it, they are in fact, a God?

Well yes, in the same sense that biologists are not in fact able to prove the theory of evolution. In such a case, I would say that God had demonstrated his case such that any reasonable person should at least give provisional assent; it is not possible to prove anything beyond that.

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you fear religion?

« on: December 13, 2007, 09:10:10 PM »

No it say that he fulfills the mosaic law.

And that the law will not change. "...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled..."

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 13, 2007, 10:58:32 AM »

It's all about faith, something we all possess but some of us (willfully) ignore. Look deep down inside, honestly seek the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you will find noodley integration.

In all seriousness, a billion people looked deep down inside, honestly sought their superior, and found Allah. Hundreds of millions more found Vishnu. Tens of millions found your God but not Jesus. So which one am I supposed to honestly seek for? Do you honestly seek the existence of fairies, or Zeus? Explain to me why I should waste any time seeking something that I have absolutely no reason to believe even exists.  If your God wants me to believe, I'm right here.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 12, 2007, 09:54:46 PM »

We don't depend on proof of anything. Some atheists insist in the nonexistence of God, which would meet your criteria. But I don't and many do not. Thus the only all-inclusive definition of atheist is someone who specifically disbelieves in all gods.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no god.

« on: December 12, 2007, 08:25:09 PM »

Dogma, noun:

1. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

2. A doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma".

As the only possible umbrella classification including all atheists is disbelief in religious doctrines proclaimed true without proof, and the only authorities we accept in deciding our beliefs on the subject are those who have had to earn our respect, your claims have no merit.