C
Cecilianus
Guest
As a clarification, I have only seen the Lanciano miracle in photograph and videotape - though what I wouldn’t give to be able to actually go to Italy…
- Status
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I know that, silly.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Well, you are a theist, and a few posts ago you used Wikipedia to support your theistic ideas.It doesn’t say anything that would support me, a Theist. IT IS NOT THE THEIST’S BIBLE. That is irrefutable, despite your sarcasm. My understanding of “infinity” is spread out on a finite number of the most recent posts herein. Do the work yourself, just for that! Then, get to bed!
jd
The location of your posts tells us nothing about how your understanding of infinity is sufficient to support your conclusions.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
What!!! A theist with more than just a superficial knowledge of science! Things aren’t supposed to be that way!!!
Just wondering, what science background you have, Chuck? Given your name and your quite vocal belief in empiricism and scientism, I’m kind of curious.
J
j1akey
Guest
Well to be honest I couldn’t possibly convey this without a wall or two of text but I have found a good article on the subject that I hope people will take the time to read.
It doesn’t address my specific beef with things like creationism but I think it does provide a good, if incomplete outline of of why I think fundamentalism is dangerous.
Also I just don’t have the brain power right now to really put it down into words myself, been a long day.
flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Analysis%20&%20Commentary/Analysis-Religion_main.htm
J
j1akey
Guest
You know to be quite honest I think this argument could be made for both side. Everyone loses their cool. When it comes to discussions between believers and non-believers tempers will flare on both sides and both are equally guilty of being disrespecful of the other. It happens to everyone at some point, some more than others.
Another thing to keep in mind, for a non-believer the difference between God and god is more of a matter of poor grammar rather than any kind of actual insult toward anything. Since we don’t believe in a god we don’t really see the big deal here. To be honest until it was mentioned on this thread I never gave it a second thought one way or the other. To me God is just a word so whether it was capitalized or not never really entered my mind beyond grammar.
I can honestly say that yes, I do think that people of faith are superstitious. Backwards, not so much unless it’s taken to a real extreme. I do see the attraction of faith and why most of the world believes in some sort of a god. It doesn’t work for me but that’s me. I’ve been insulted and even had family members cry when they found out I was an atheist. That’s not exactly an easy thing to take but I can’t change my stance because of how it makes others feel. I still have no idea why people treat me this way just becuase of what I percieve as a different way of looking at the world but the only thing any of us can do is suck it up and go on with our lives.
W
wbarquez
Guest
Of course, I believe that the person who make the claim must prove it. However, for you to say that there is none for God is a declaration of absolute certainty by a person who thinks he is omniscient. Do you know where the universe came? Is the universe eternal? Is material reality the only thing that exists? If yes, why so? Do you know it for a fact? Have you empirical evidence to prove it? Is there really no evidence or is there no evidence simply because you do not know that there is such evidence? If you say you do not know, then how come you make such positive declarations?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I would like to go farther than wbarquez. I would like to point out that the theists have been defending God’s existence for thirteen pages now, and not a single argument has been proposed for why there wouldn’t be a God. I would also like to suggest that anyone who denies a belief held by the entire mass of humanity since the dawn of recorded history has the burden of proof on their shoulders.
And even transcending burden-of-proof arguments (which I don’t ever resort as a final argument, since I feel perfectly comfortable producing arguments for everything I believe), I would really like them to choke up a positive argument for atheism, if only for the sake of honest, fair debatesmanship.
And even transcending burden-of-proof arguments (which I don’t ever resort as a final argument, since I feel perfectly comfortable producing arguments for everything I believe), I would really like them to choke up a positive argument for atheism, if only for the sake of honest, fair debatesmanship.
J
JDaniel
Guest
May I try? Now, this is only a short list of the arguments I’ve seen during the past year:
First, there’s the argument for the magical nothing that took some “magical” nothing and created the universe and everything else.
Second, there’s the argument for the “magical” something that took some “magical” something and created the universe and everything else.
Third, there’s the argument for the “magical” stuff science has no evidence at all for yet, but, we should wait for its discovery, that created the universe and everything else.
Fourth, there’s the argument for the “’magical’ forces of evolution” that the universe and everything else came to be from.
Fifth, there’s the argument for the postulation of other universes that “magically” already existed before the Big Bang that the current universe and everything else came from.
Sixth, there’s the argument for the lack of evidence for the Christian’s God, which lack, by its very self, is “magically” sufficient to cause the universe and everything else, except God.
Seventh, there’s the argument from “magical” science that, well, really says nothing except that there’s no God.
Eighth, there’s the argument for the “magical” appearance of the singularity, that thing that originally encased the stuff that exploded at the big bang.
Ninth, there’s the argument that the Occam’s Razor quasi-rule somehow “magically” created the universe and everything else.
There are a few others, but, I may need them in the future. Now, I really do not want the above to be construed as being disrespectful (to what, I don’t know) but, really, these are the opposing arguments that I, and everyone else that has been on this forum, have seen, in the past year or more. I am compelled to employ the use of the word, “magical”, because if you truly consider the arguments, you soon realize that they are not from any kind of science, they truly are from magic. I know, I know, but “So is yours”, they will say. But, that is simply not true. Amongst the litter here are the hidden gems, sometimes delivered well, sometimes not, that are profound arguments for God’s existence, proffered by almost every Christian (and some Atheists, too) that have graced these pages.
I, like you, Cecilianus, would like to see at least one really profound anti-God argument. But, please, opponents, don’t use any of the above arguments any more. They do not in any way propel philosophy forward. They waste continuity and time.
jd
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
You claimed that you know god you have a personal relationship with him. Others also claim the same.
So how is it that two people that claim to have a personal relationship with the same thing can such different impressions of that thing.
I.E me and my brother have a personal relationship with my father, if you asked us both what his opinion on a subject is, we would give a pretty similar answer. This does not happen with god.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Are you talking to me?
I’ve studied biology, chemisty, maths, physics and computing at university. I have a degree in math and computing and i am going into my honors year in computing. I try to keep upto speed with biology as it is one of my fav subjects especially evolution. I plan on doing a masters in evolutionary biology once i am finished with my honors.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
So, if we can convince more and more people a false proposition is true, then the proposition gradually morphs from false to true? How many do we need? Where’s the tipping point?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
An answer is given by St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. “We see now through a glass darkly, but then we shall see Him face-to-face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known.”
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Thanks; that’s what I was wondering.
I often see people push a hard-core empiricist line or uphold “quantum mechanics” as the foundation for all their nutcase (especially New Age) ideas and then find out that they don’t really even know science (one certain author by the name of Diarmuid O Murchu being the worst example). I’m glad to see that you were actually a math/science major.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
No. Truth is not determined by a popular vote; but the fact that the entire human race believed in it does indicate that we need to take the idea seriously and have good reason for disbelieving it. To simply dismiss a belief that widely-grounded in human nature without having very compelling reasons for doing so is simply arrogant, and incredibly so.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
What positive declarations?
**Do you know where the universe came? **
Nope
**Is the universe eternal? **
Dunno
**
Is material reality the only thing that exists? **
Don’t know
**If yes, why so? **
See above
**
Do you know it for a fact? **
See 2 above
**Have you empirical evidence to prove it? **
See 3 above
Now what about this empirical evidence for god, or can i still lack belief?
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Perhaps dismissing popular ideas is incredibly arrogant. So be it.
J
j1akey
Guest
Been busy for a couple days but I’d like to try and tackle the argument of why there wouldn’t be a god. Unfortunately it isn’t anything that you probably haven’t heard before.
Based on everything we know and what we have learned through the history of man tells me that there isn’t any kind of god out there. It used to be that everything happened because of God. Disease, plague, sickness, famine, storms, death, the sun, the stars, everthing. The problem with this is, throughout human history we’ve found explanations for all of these things. A problem comes up and we solve it and can explain in a way thay that is verifiable and observable. New questions come up that need explanation and one is eventually provided, even if a takes a while to do, like gravity. It took one man to get most of it and then someone else had to come up with a new formula to figure out the rest.
Today there are still many things we have to answered but I have every confidence that eventually we’ll figure it out. Where did the universe come from? Who knows but based on what I know it should be some sort of explanation based in reality rather than the supernatural because everything we know about the universe says that it’s not a supernatural thing. Even if we don’t know the answer yet, history has shown that there is always and explanation, even if it’s beyond the range of our current understanding.
So…now we have arguments for atheism / non-belief, whatever you want to call it since it’s the same thing.
Keep in mind that these are not necessarily reasons that I don’t believe, my non-belief goes much deeper than simple likes and dislikes but just some benefits keeping in mind that I don’t believe in a hell either or that I’m going there for my “sins” either. This isn’t any religion in particular, I’m an equal oportunity non-believer.
*]I don’t need to listen to someone else tell me how to live my life. (If you want to call this a problem with authority then so be it, I’m not having that argument again.)
*]I don’t need to feel guilty for what seems like to me for living my life.
*]Sex with whoever I want whenever I want and I can get as crazy as I want and I’m also allowed to protect myself (condoms).
*]I’m not mandated to try to convert everyone I know to atheism.
*]I don’t rely on my faith to a higher being to solve my problems, I take care of it myself.
*]I don’t need to waste my time in church every week. (Sorry if this offends anyone but I don’t see why believers can’t just believe and worship in their own way instead of having to to a church all the time to tell them how to believe in something).
*]I don’t need to try and figure out which God is the right God. There were many religions and gods long before the abrahamic god so no one can convince me that we somehow figured out that now this one is the right one and all the others were wrong for some reason.
*]My body is my own, I can do what I want with it.
*]Living for eternity in either heaven or hell sounds like a raw deal to me. I mean really, eternity? That’s a long time. The human life span is less than 100 years and suddenly it goes up to neverending. That sounds like torture to me. Who would want to exist for eternity? That takes all the ambition out of life. Sounds like empty promises from a magic potion dealer to me to draw people in to give them comfort.
*]I can make up my own stuff on my own like instead of 72 virgins waiting for me in the afterlife I can have 72 whores instead that know what they’re doing.
*]No silly rituals or traditions that I need to adhere to.
F
Fran65
Guest
It is revealing j1akey that 8 out of 11 of your reasons for not believing in God start with the word ‘I’, whilst the other 3 also concern your own behaviour.
I appreciate that you are giving your reasons for a lack of belief, but it still strikes me that ‘you’ are at the centre of every reason you give.
You might, for example have given reasons relating to reducing global conflict, freeing up resources (both material, intellectual and social) and other ‘benefits’ to society and people in general. But you didn’t.
NB:
I have a BSc Hons in Psychology, teach a module on the philosophy of science and have taught Biology to A Level (UK exam at 18 years old), and Chemistry and Physics to GCSE (UK exams at 16). I also run extra curricular (extension) classes for students applying to study Medicine and prepare prospective scientists for Oxbridge entrance exams (science specific). I’m also a faithful Catholic.
I appreciate that you are giving your reasons for a lack of belief, but it still strikes me that ‘you’ are at the centre of every reason you give.
You might, for example have given reasons relating to reducing global conflict, freeing up resources (both material, intellectual and social) and other ‘benefits’ to society and people in general. But you didn’t.
NB:
I have a BSc Hons in Psychology, teach a module on the philosophy of science and have taught Biology to A Level (UK exam at 18 years old), and Chemistry and Physics to GCSE (UK exams at 16). I also run extra curricular (extension) classes for students applying to study Medicine and prepare prospective scientists for Oxbridge entrance exams (science specific). I’m also a faithful Catholic.
J
j1akey
Guest
If you had read the entire post you would have seen that I said Keep in mind that these are not necessarily reasons that I don’t believe, my non-belief goes much deeper than simple likes and dislikes but just some benefits keeping in mind that I don’t believe in a hell either or that I’m going there for my “sins” either. This isn’t any religion in particular, I’m an equal oportunity non-believer
I also said Based on everything we know and what we have learned through the history of man tells me that there isn’t any kind of god out there. It used to be that everything happened because of God. Disease, plague, sickness, famine, storms, death, the sun, the stars, everthing. The problem with this is, throughout human history we’ve found explanations for all of these things. A problem comes up and we solve it and can explain in a way thay that is verifiable and observable. New questions come up that need explanation and one is eventually provided, even if a takes a while to do, like gravity. It took one man to get most of it and then someone else had to come up with a new formula to figure out the rest. Given this there is no reason for me to think that we won’t eventually solve the questions that we have today, even if it’s not in my lifetime.
- Status