I am an atheist thread 2

[ontologysue]

Didn’t Plato sleep with young boys?
Is that not something which has become ‘not virtuous’?
I don’t think there are absolutes, ontologysue. We humans try our darndest to make it so, but morals change with the times.

That’s the best you can do? (Plato slept with young boys)

Well, if you don’t accept the fact that the great names in Philosophy over the eons of time have accumulated certain absolutes in terms of what Virtue consists of, ie Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, etc than I think maybe we need to start requiring the public schools to go back to the old days and start teaching virtue!

You operate every day on the foundations of certain absolutes, ie expectations you have of others, reasons why you are disappointed by others, your concepts of right and wrong and your highest goals and aspirations, all based on what has been established as Virtue, Truth, since man first became a conscious being.

The fact that one can blithely pass through mortal existence, oblivious, or, I would prefer “un-alert” to what has been bequeathed to him, in this regard, surprises me.

Our founding fathers, for example, Benjamin Franklin, listed 13 virtues needed to build character and yet today I’ll bet most high school graduates would be hard put to name 3 of them!

It’s a pretty cynical, relativistic life, when one concedes no congnizance or stake in preserving certain absolutes for his posterity.

I am making no judgement on you personally, I am strictly speaking philosophically, you’re probably a much better person than I.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…snip…why he would ever spend a second of his time on any religious subject?

Because with such a strong difference in our positions, there must be much to learn for one or the other

maybe this was an attempt to be kind, however can it be correct? If no God exists what is the benfit an atheist could deem from his time spent on the subject?

My atheism indicates that you cannot really believe all that religion nonsense.

maybe a misunderstanding? But the earlier post of no fault found in everybody is agonistic seems in play here. However let me say the reason I believe (faith) there are different religions and similarly strange issues is failures in human understanding of morals not failure of morals

Unless we start believing each other about this, we might as well be talking to ourselves, right?

believing is faith it could be said an atheist is one of great faith. his faith is a belief he had no other opportunity. His faith is his fate ?

Again I ask, since my morals direct me to advocating free access to all women for abortions, and some theists believe the opposite, which of us has a defective ‘soul’? I think if Yahweh himself installed our morals, he did a shoddy job. No consistency.

There is an abortion procedure in which a half born baby is killed. I suspect the doctor has to hold the baby in to complete the abortion because if the baby comes out of the mother the doctor is then a murderer. It is the law of man which requires he kill the baby inside the mother. In the absence of that law he may well chose to kill minutes after birth. But is that a surprise, people kill people every day. And these killers are from both Christian and Non Christian backgrounds. It is not God which instructed them to kill, it is their personal decision to kill despite them knowing better. It seems you reject free will however an atheist must because of the source of free will. So why is killing humans bad to an atheist certainly not for violating God’s law. So how do you weigh the death of this innocent child against the death of other innocent people?

 

[steve_b]

If God was the singularity, then God no longer exists except as part of everything and everyone.

Therefore there was no separate creation of humans, no fall from grace in the Garden, no need for worship or redemption, no need for priests and popes.

If God was the singularity, then there is no soul, no after life, just recycling of matter and energy all of which is God.

Not,

As a followup to my last light hearted answer to you, I haven’t gotten a definition yet from anyone here for how they define singularity. Maybe someone will offer one.

I posted from a NASA website that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old +/- 1%. And they’re serious about their accuracy. So therefore, I reasonably, proposed before that date, say 15 billion years, there was no universe.

Even if we trace the beginning of the universe back to the first microsecond (using Planck time ), before that time, there is no universe…

The big bang theory of the universe, started from singularity. Singularity I gather, (absent a cogent definition which I’m waiting for) contained everything that would ever imaginably be necessary, to produce, at some point in time, the explosion/expansion of materials necessary to form ALL the universe as we know it, ALL neatly designed from this ONE explosive/expansion 13.7 billion years ago…

Not being a scientist, I asked a few questions as a result of this information

• what happened 1 planck second before THIS event?
• what did things look like 15 billion years ago (before the BANG! )
  I’m interested because I’m interested in cause i.e origin, and because science is interested in what is seen and quantifyable.

When I asked I was told, I’m paraphrasing , the big bang theory doesn’t tell us anything about the initial cause of the universe. Just that it is traced to singularity.

I’m told by those here the theory doesn’t make any claims as to what happened before singularity, therefore science doesn’t know what initially caused the universe or how singularity came to be.

Okay, that being said, It seems to me if a scientific theory is going to be taken seriously, it is important to answer this scientifically, and not expect faith to enter into the equation, agreed? Therefore,

• what is singularity?
• is it eternal?
• or is it finite?
• where did singularity come from?
  If science can’t scientifically answer these questions about singularity’s characterisics and origin, then where does this leave the theory of the big bang?

If singularity is finite, then something/someone caused it. It can’t cause itself, and it can’t come from nothing, which would break all laws of science. It MUST come from something.

Is singularity eternal? Then there are a bunch of questions, one being, do things eternal, change?

Singularity (waiting for a good definition) must contain EVERYTHING, lacking nothing. Because From one single explosion/expansion 13.7 billion years ago, all this highly elaborate and complex, yet orderly universe, with everything possible we have today in the entire solar system, appeared from it.

can you see why this doesn’t sound like science to me?

 

[ontologysue]

Not,

As a followup to my last light hearted answer to you, I haven’t gotten a definition yet from anyone here for how they define singularity. Maybe someone will offer one.

I posted from a NASA website that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old +/- 1%. And they’re serious about their accuracy. So therefore, I reasonably, proposed before that date, say 15 billion years, there was no universe.

Even if we trace the beginning of the universe back to the first microsecond (using Planck time ), before that time, there is no universe…

The big bang theory of the universe, started from singularity. Singularity I gather, (absent a cogent definition which I’m waiting for) contained everything that would ever imaginably be necessary, to produce, at some point in time, the explosion/expansion of materials necessary to form ALL the universe as we know it, ALL neatly designed from this ONE explosive/expansion 13.7 billion years ago…

Not being a scientist, I asked a few questions as a result of this information

• what happened 1 planck second before THIS event?
• what did things look like 15 billion years ago (before the BANG! )
  I’m interested because I’m interested in cause i.e origin, and because science is interested in what is seen and quantifyable.

When I asked I was told, I’m paraphrasing , the big bang theory doesn’t tell us anything about the initial cause of the universe. Just that it is traced to singularity.

I’m told by those here the theory doesn’t make any claims as to what happened before singularity, therefore science doesn’t know what initially caused the universe or how singularity came to be.

Okay, that being said, It seems to me if a scientific theory is going to be taken seriously, it is important to answer this scientifically, and not expect faith to enter into the equation, agreed? Therefore,

• what is singularity?
• is it eternal?
• or is it finite?
• where did singularity come from?
  If science can’t scientifically answer these questions about singularity’s characterisics and origin, then where does this leave the theory of the big bang?

If singularity is finite, then something/someone caused it. It can’t cause itself, and it can’t come from nothing, which would break all laws of science. It MUST come from something.

Is singularity eternal? Then there are a bunch of questions, one being, do things eternal, change?

Singularity (waiting for a good definition) must contain EVERYTHING, lacking nothing. Because From one single explosion/expansion 13.7 billion years ago, all this highly elaborate and complex, yet orderly universe, with everything possible we have today in the entire solar system, appeared from it.

can you see why this doesn’t sound like science to me?

Singularity is “the breakdown of natural law” (Hawking)
And, it wasn’t an “explosion” as such, because, an explosion requires “space” for things to fly apart in, but there was no space until some point after (now that we have “time” as well)
Did a vacuum exist, but scientists have trouble studying nothing if that was it, or was it simply the laws of nature, or was it “information”, a thought, an infinite limitless Intelligence?

 

[steve_b]

Singularity is “the breakdown of natural law” (Hawking)
And, it wasn’t an “explosion” as such, because, an explosion requires “space” for things to fly apart in, but there was no space until some point after (now that we have “time” as well)
Did a vacuum exist, but scientists have trouble studying nothing if that was it, or was it simply the laws of nature, or was it “information”, a thought, an infinite limitless Intelligence?

A friend gave me a copy of “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. It’s been sitting on my shelf for at least a year. It’s only 197 pages. I guess it’s time I crack the cover.

on a similar note
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The astrology pages work the same way. Does this mean they are right too? …

A:

In what way is astrology the same?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Don’t you remember on the other thread how phooney and I showed you that the one prophecy you pulled out was incorrect in several of it’s details? It certainly doesn’t fit as ‘100% accurate’. …

Actually, i remember you first trying to find inaccuracies in the predictions, but then agreeing that the predictions were accurate. When i pointed out how what you claimed to be inaccuracies were only apparent but not real, you changed your argument.

You then agreed that the predictions of Alexander the Great made by Ezekiel in the Bible were correct, but they were too correct. Therefore, you argued, Alexander the Great must have read Ezekiel before the events occurred.

I know i have you at a disadvantage, as you have been carrying on many conversations with many who disagree with you, but i have been carrying on only two conversations (one with you and one with Phooney) so i can understand how this might have slipped your mind. I won’t fault you for that. I’ve been in the same situation at this Web site myself with others ganging up on me because of my beliefs. It’s hard to keep all the conversations straight!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… So the fact that that prophecy you offered, since it was refuted, at least partly, proves that the bible is wrong? Or does it just prove that that particular book is wrong?

My challenge i made earlier is still offered to you, A: Show me just one prophecy in the Bible that has been definitively shown to be false and i will admit that Christianity is a lie and throw my lot in with you.

Are you aware of any prophecies besides the one i pointed out to you (keep in mind that this is just one of hundreds), or are your objections merely arguments from ignorance?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You too, mate!

I have to get some sleep now though

Cool. U from Australia? One of my favorite movies as a teen was Road Warrior.

 

[ontologysue]

A friend gave me a copy of “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. It’s been sitting on my shelf for at least a year. It’s only 197 pages. I guess it’s time I crack the cover.

on a similar note
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html

Thanks for the link, yes, Gerald Schroeder, of “The Hidden Face of
God” and “The Science of God”, has a big splash on his website about Flew’s conversion to an Infinite Intelligence. Schroeder goes into quite a bit of detail on all the biological evidence influencing Flew and others.

 

[steve_b]

Sounds to me like you enjoy evangelicalism more than you enjoy thinking.

Reason leads away from the notion of gods.

That’s awefully broad don’t you think?

all one has to do is show where ONE recognizably thinking person with the capacity to reason moves from atheism to theism.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html

as stated, your premise is false.

 

[notself]

That’s awefully broad don’t you think?

all one has to do is show where ONE recognizably thinking person with the capacity to reason moves from atheism to theism.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html

as stated, your premise is false.

He moved to Deism which is a specific form of theism. This is a shortened version of an entry on Wiki. I recommend reading the footnotes in the original article to those who are interested in knowing more.

In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew’s friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew… In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated (“While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”)… Flew’s conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created “a lot of” evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact…

When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions…

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article reporting Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book. The article provoked a public outcry, in which PZ Myers called Varghese “a contemptible manipulator.” Varghese, however, defended his actions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

 

[steve_b]

:
In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew’s friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew… In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated (“While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”)… Flew’s conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created “a lot of” evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact…

When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions…

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article reporting Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book. The article provoked a public outcry, in which PZ Myers called Varghese “a contemptible manipulator.” Varghese, however, defended his actions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Looks to me as if he is on a journey. Just as he moved away from atheism, towards theism after many years, let’s see where the journey continues to take him.

As an aside, I don’t quote from Wiki much because it’s possible for anyone to edit anything into the articles. As you surely expect, that’s a huge problem.

 

[_A]

I do not know such, nor would I suspect such. I do not and my suspicion is all of these religions are from the same source.

Me too! I think they are all inventions of man (or woman).

why an atheist would self proclaim,

Because I have been offered several versions of ‘god’. They have all been such obvious nonsense and so full of corruption that it is quite easy to be sure that the gods described are inventions.

another is why he would ever spend a second of his time on any religious subject?

I enjoy the debate. I enjoy learning, but most of all, I enjoy people. There is a chance, however small, that I might make a friend here. If there is a better aspiration, I can’t think of it at the moment. It is the connections that humans make with each other that makes us so great. (the Mars landing could not have been accomplished by one man, for example).

My belief in God indicates you cannot be an atheist. This is not complex; to be an atheist you must be void of the Natural Moral Law written in the souls of men.

This is utter nonsense. Why don’t you clearly write out these ‘laws’, and I will show you where it falls down. Morals are not only different from person to person, but also from country to country and year to year.

 

[_A]

That’s the best you can do? (Plato slept with young boys)

Just an example of something that was accepted as ‘moral behaviour’ in one time, which will not be the same now.

Well, if you don’t accept the fact that the great names in Philosophy over the eons of time have accumulated certain absolutes in terms of what Virtue consists of, ie Justice,

So the fact that some consider lighting their sister on fire as ‘just’ doesn’t tell you something? How about those who achieve justice by killing?

Prudence, Fortitude, Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, etc than I think maybe we need to start requiring the public schools to go back to the old days and start teaching virtue!

I don’t think your version of ‘virtue’ could be accepted by all. Nor could mine. Trouble is, people think for themselves. They also decide what is ‘virtuous’ for themselves. If you want to suggest that some of these ‘virtues’ are universal, I would be glad to explore them with you, but words like ‘justice’ and ‘honour’ can mean very different things to different people. How do we find common ground?

You operate every day on the foundations of certain absolutes, ie expectations you have of others, reasons why you are disappointed by others, your concepts of right and wrong and your highest goals and aspirations, all based on what has been established as Virtue, Truth, since man first became a conscious being.

Grand claims, but I don’t think truth is such a virtue. Many others, by their actions seem to agree with me.

The fact that one can blithely pass through mortal existence, oblivious, or, I would prefer “un-alert” to what has been bequeathed to him, in this regard, surprises me.

Surprise of surprises - there is no god to arrange all this for you. We have to work it out between us.

Our founding fathers, for example, Benjamin Franklin, listed 13 virtues needed to build character and yet today I’ll bet

Well, many don’t share your idea of what is ‘virtuous’. Would you force your views on them? Say, force them to be courageous? Wouldn’t that make courage commonplace and as meaningless as flatulence?

It’s a pretty cynical, relativistic life, when one concedes no congnizance or stake in preserving certain absolutes for his posterity.

I don’t even get what you said there, except that it seems you are calling me cynical, moments after you said “most high school graduates would be hard put to name 3 of them!”

I am making no judgement on you personally, I am strictly speaking philosophically, you’re probably a much better person than I.

Baloney and other comments.

But thank you

 

[steve_b]

:
Originally Posted by steve b

No, maybe I need to be clearer. I’m saying I can’t and I won’t doubt God.

 

[notself]

Looks to me as if he is on a journey. Just as he moved away from atheism, towards theism after many years, let’s see where the journey continues to take him.

As an aside, I don’t quote from Wiki much because it’s possible for anyone to edit anything into the articles. As you surely expect, that’s a huge problem.

It is now possible to track the edits and read the back story on disputed articles. I find that by taking the time to read the footnotes and follow the links, one can develop a real appreciation for Wiki.

If you just read the article without checking the edits, disputes, and footnotes, then you only get part of the story.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

That’s awefully broad don’t you think?

all one has to do is show where ONE recognizably thinking person with the capacity to reason moves from atheism to theism.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110203.html

as stated, your premise is false.

It always made me wonder how the much the ***average ordinary theist ***thinks about their faith. The idea that an ignorant Christian man is greater in the eyes of God than your “Anthony Flew-type Deist” I think is absurd.

Why couldn’t man create a “God-figure” who likes humans who pursue an objective inquiry into His nature?

 

[steve_b]

It is now possible to track the edits and read the back story on disputed articles. I find that by taking the time to read the footnotes and follow the links, one can develop a real appreciation for Wiki.

How often do people do a thorough check of all this? I personally have decided, I’m not going to use it again.
not:

If you just read the article without checking the edits, disputes, and footnotes, then you only get part of the story.

Putting this simply,

If this was an airplane I’m about to get on, and someone told me that anyone, yes anyone, who wants to monkey around with this airplane could do it, and probably has, I’d get out of line right then and there.

I’ve used Wiki before. I’m not going to use it again until they tighten up thei standards.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

No, maybe I need to be clearer. I’m saying I can’t and I won’t doubt God.

Great! You have an inner psychological need to believe in God while A has an inner psychological need to debate God.

I have an inner psychological to say you’re both right!