The Passion...

[torgosPizza]

I am intrigued by your idea, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

[AmandaGal]

That's why I'm pagan too. It makes sense.  I guess I've known a lot of biologists who were Christian but to me, a lot of the ideas Christians hold dear don't make sense with how I perceive the world and what I know to be true.  Do I think I'm right in the way I perceive the world?  I'm pretty sure my view is clouded.  I'm pretty sure what I know to be true isn't what everyone knows to be true.  However, I can't make myself believe something that I don't.  I can't bend my mind to believe something that doesn't follow my logic.  I think, in general, faith in anything doesn't follow logic.  If it was logical, it wouldn't be faith.  I think that's the flaw in most religious debates.  It's an endless circle of logic vs faith vs science and all of those things are separate. 

I guess it all boils down to me not having much "faith," but that's fine with me although  I sometimes envy those who do have faith.  They believe in something so strongly and don't even question it.  It's not an issue. It just is.  I sometimes wish I could be like that.

[Tyrant]

That's why I'm pagan too. It makes sense.  I guess I've known a lot of biologists who were Christian but to me, a lot of the ideas Christians hold dear don't make sense with how I perceive the world and what I know to be true.  Do I think I'm right in the way I perceive the world?  I'm pretty sure my view is clouded.  I'm pretty sure what I know to be true isn't what everyone knows to be true.  However, I can't make myself believe something that I don't.  I can't bend my mind to believe something that doesn't follow my logic.  I think, in general, faith in anything doesn't follow logic.  If it was logical, it wouldn't be faith.  I think that's the flaw in most religious debates.  It's an endless circle of logic vs faith vs science and all of those things are separate. 

I guess it all boils down to me not having much "faith," but that's fine with me although  I sometimes envy those who do have faith.  They believe in something so strongly and don't even question it.  It's not an issue. It just is.  I sometimes wish I could be like that.

  I'm not so much discussing the Christian belief as I am in the belief of a Creator in general. This would cover just about any belief system that holds to the ideal that someThing/One  (or even Things) designed and created reality as we know it. Despite what anyone might think, I'm not trying to witness to anyone here, honestly. I'm too much of a live and let live type person and even when I am in witnessing mode, I don't use words to do it because I think actions speak louder than words. Given that none of you can see me and I'm just words on a computer screen...well....nuff said. I think I'm just defending a logical notation here.

  All I'm saying is that God isn't mystical. He isn't mythical. He doesn't play games. There are logical rules in the universe and He plays by them when He interacts with us. He chooses times to bend the rules but they never get broken. He set up a whole system of how to deal with us a very long time ago and, as awesome as it would be, He isn't going to fly down in a flaming chariot with a choir of angels to prove to us He exists. That's the cheap way out. God doesn't REQUIRE faith. He asks for it. He doesn't make us doubt Him, He ALLOWS it because He wants us to have a choice. Either believe or don't. What kind of God would He be if He just went around MAKING us do things? I admit that I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. If you understand free will to its fullest extent, then it should automatically make sense.

  As for damnation and hellfire, I would say that there's a price to pay in either scenerio of belief of disbelief. That's one of the rules in place. You put something in, you get something out. You don't believe in Him, something happens. You believe in Him, something happens. Very simple concept and it applies to absolutely everything in the universe whether you're a human, a fly, a rock, or a black hole. I do believe there is even a very well known scientific explination for this very concept, too. So there. You can even translate it into math!

  Back in defense of the Scientific Method, it's not there to prove/disprove God. That's not its function and I get just as tired of believers trying to use it to prove He exists as aethiests do to prove He doesn't. It wasn't created for either purpose and I don't like seeing either group bending and twisting it out of shape to make it work their way.
 
As a sidenote, this is post #666. I'm evil now. RAR!!!!

[BathTub]

Here is some proof of good I saw posted on another forum.

I  wonder why they said to skip the first 4 minutes, ah well can't be important.

"All Atheists must watch this apparently...

[gv=475,325]-811321280634119479[/gv]

from 3:42 on wards..

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Here is some proof of good I saw posted on another forum.

I  wonder why they said to skip the first 4 minutes, ah well can't be important.

"All Atheists must watch this apparently...

[gv=475,325]-811321280634119479[/gv]

from 3:42 on wards..

I don't agree with Islam, and quite truthfully it scares me, but what he said at the end is very true.    All atheism is would be an interpretation of the facts, I'm sorry but that is all it is.  Just as a Catholic is different from me as a Protestant because of interpretations of the Bible.  The Protestant interpretation may be correct in one part, but the Catholic may be correct on another.  The core is still the same.

Science and thus the Scientific Method is a tool of observation and measurement.  It doesn't scream out its secrets on its own, but is interpreted by the observers.  These observers thus can be biased toward one interpretation over another.

[Tyrant]

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

  This is long. But very detailed. Read at your own risk.

Very interesting, Bathtub. We don't hear the Islam take on things very often and this was quite refreshing. Yeah, the first four minutes are kind of weird, but pretty much everything afterwards made sense. Thanks for putting that up here.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

WHOOHOOOO tyrant awesome posts and thats an awesome site.  thanks

[torgosPizza]

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

  This is long. But very detailed. Read at your own risk.

Very interesting, Bathtub. We don't hear the Islam take on things very often and this was quite refreshing. Yeah, the first four minutes are kind of weird, but pretty much everything afterwards made sense. Thanks for putting that up here.

14. The Moral Argument

   1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
   2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
   3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
   4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

How is #3 just assumed to be true? Why does moral obligation to any type of supreme being automatically prove its existence? That's a logical flaw, and is not a way to structure an argument for your cause.

I respect your views, Tyrant, but I've read articles from Apologetics Press before, and they tend to be pretty insulting. None of these arguments are new, and just as easily defended in a real debate, not in a website such as AP that assumes there is (to start) some kind of moral obligation.

And also, I'm not sure that the Islamic video that BathTub posted "makes sense" as you put it. Mountains were created to keep the earth from moving during an earthquake? A water barrier that keeps salt and fresh water apart? Not to mention the appalling views on females and the fact that Islam demands if you believe in Jesus' divinity, you should be killed. How does any of this make sense in a modern era?

[BBQ Platypus]

Hmm...(ponders actually making serious conversation)....................(leaves)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

How is #3 just assumed to be true? Why does moral obligation to any type of supreme being automatically prove its existence? That's a logical flaw, and is not a way to structure an argument for your cause.

please provide us with how premise 1 can be true and 3 is still false (for the record it can and has been done)

also the fact that moral obligation exists doesnt automatically imply that obligation is to any god at all.  Moral obligation can in fact be something that exists outside of god.  I look at it that god exists but didnt create that obligation, but is the only being with full complete understanding of it. 

[BBQ Platypus]

Well, okay, fine.  I've heard so-called "positive" atheists* religion is often said to be a crutch devised by humans themselves to try to assign an explanation or purpose to their lives (although the same  I've found it hard to find any purely logical secular reason for any sort of moral obligation or ethical value - not even for life itself.  When a person dies, mass is conserved - all that's changed is the way the atoms are arranged.  What's so special about homeostasis, anyway?  In terms of food, fuel, and any conceivable physical use, the remaining material is still able to be used - the atomic and molecular bonds still contain energy.  Eventually these bonds may be broken, but they will inherently form other bonds.  In short, life is nothing more or less than an extremely complicated chemical reaction.  If we consider a human being to consist of nothing beyond this physical mass, and this physical mass is unimportant, how can anything about life be important?

And even if we make the assumption (however unsupported) that life has inherent moral value, we still aren't necessarily valuing ourselves.  I mean, in the grand scheme of things, what would it mean if a miniature black hole appeared in the center of the Earth, crushing us all to smithereens?  Given the vast size of the universe, there is bound to be life elsewhere - the number of Class G stars in this galaxy alone, even AFTER taking into account the special conditions required for complex multicellular life is, um...(apologizes in advance for horrible pun - I had no choice, I'm telling you!)...astronomical.  The impact of the sudden collapse of a small, rocky planet orbiting a yellow dwarf tucked away in the Orion Arm is likely to be so miniscule as to be insignificant, even if we consider chaos theory.  The hyper-intelligent bat-people of Tau Ceti will never know that the Earth has exploded, and will continue on about their mundane daily bat-person tasks, without even the awareness of questioning the political correctness of the term "bat-person."

But life HAS to be meaningful, doesn't it?  It is, after all, OUR life.  But how can we if there's no rational reason to value it?  The answer, of course, lies in some form of grand illogic, whether it be religion or secular values.  Any empirical analysis, undertaken with an appropriate detachment from our inherent biases as living beings, will find both systems to be equally absurd and arbitrary (unless, of course, it turns out that God does exist).

Personally, I believe in a God whose existance is neither falsifiable by nor inconsistant with science.  Then again, I also believe that FOX News is fair and balanced and that JFK is still alive and being held captive by an elite team of mutant cyber ninja O.J. Simpsons from outer space, so I really shouldn't be trusted with this kind of thing.








* I've always found the idea of "positive atheism" to be at least as absurd as blindly and unquestionably subscribing to one's religious beliefs.  The fact is, no one can be conclusively "positive" of the existance or non-existance based on logical and scientific proofs.  The very nature of God allows him to slip beneath the cracks in what can conclusively be proved.  And I'd be very interested to learn what these positive atheists know about the beginning of the universe (the "Planck epoch," during which neither time nor space existed) that I don't.  I'd also like to know how the hell they found out about it, since such conditions would be impossible to create, let alone observe.

Even the basic logical arguments have potential explanations (this is, after all, God we're talking about).  I can think of several ways to pull a Marvel-style retcon on my religious beliefs to address the Problem of Evil, for example.  The idea of God - even in the most explicit definitions - is simply too vast and vague to logically or scientifically prove or disprove.  This, unfortunately, leads us to yet ANOTHER question: why should anyone choose one particular religion over the other ("We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do").  But I won't get into that.

(After all, I don't want to spend all night on this post.  I don't even know why I'm posting at all - I HATE religious debates.  Maybe it's because I've never posted in one before - and hopefully never will again).

I much prefer the other form of atheism.  Members of this camp argue that the burden of proof lies on proving God's existance and not on disproving it, and that there is not enough evidence of his existance to justify belief.  If, by some miracle, evidence capable of holding up under intense scientific scrutiny were to arise, however, this person would most certainly take it into consideration.  This is called "soft" or "weak" atheism - even though, in my opinion, it is much more logically sound to argue from a lack of evidence than to argue from absolute certainty.  As such, it is the only type of atheism that I feel I can intellectually respect and understand (unless you count agnosticism).

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

After all, I don't want to spend all night on this post.  I don't even know why I'm posting at all - I HATE religious debates.  Maybe it's because I've never posted in one before - and hopefully never will again).

why do you hate them?  you are clearly of clear mind and are good at them.  I think it would be a shame if your voice was silenced in our discussions. 

I had more to say but my mind went blank so uh yeah and stuff

[BBQ Platypus]

After all, I don't want to spend all night on this post.  I don't even know why I'm posting at all - I HATE religious debates.  Maybe it's because I've never posted in one before - and hopefully never will again).

why do you hate them?  you are clearly of clear mind and are good at them.  I think it would be a shame if your voice was silenced in our discussions. 

Well, mainly because they never end up going anywhere.  Although this is true for most debates in general, religious beliefs tend to be even more immutable.  Like you, I also had more to say to elaborate on my position until my mind went blank and stuff.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I I have a...food...in the oven...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I have to go...... stalk ..... lenny and carl  DOH

[ScottotD]

I don't agree with Islam, and quite truthfully it scares me,

Ditto all religions.