Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Options
1…910121415…34

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    philologos wrote: »
    Read here and here. It doesn't pose much difficulty given what the Hebrew behind Genesis shows.

    The Lord God brought everything into Creation. I fully and wholeheartedly subscribe to that.

    Do you see how important it is to ask about what people believe in before assuming?

    Ok so you are interpreting Genesis in a way that avoids it conflicting with science.


  • Options
    #333
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    shizz wrote: »
    Ok so you are interpreting Genesis in a way that avoids it conflicting with science.

    I'm reading Genesis, as it presents itself. There's good reason to read it in this way. The Hebrew text gives us good reason to think that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are poetic passages. Indeed, the text is more valuable to Christians when read in this way than attempting to read it as a science book. The intention of Genesis is not to go through a minutiae description of Creation, but rather it is to show the incredible authority of God over it.


  • Options
    #334
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Opticom wrote: »
    Not surprisingly, you've skipped most of the argument, so yeah not a satisfactory rebuttal.
    You do know I'm already watching a 2 hour video, which I have to pause a lot when I'm replying to posts. An hour going in to the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is the first cause argument isn't going to fly. I'll get around to watching it one of the next few days, but for right now, its quick to debunk the Kalam argument. It's weak. Don't try for Ontological or Teleological either. They've been handily debunked. Look it up.
    ciaran67 wrote: »
    20.38, during Coronation St, how rude.
    On the plus hand, there is after eights.
    123 LC wrote: »
    but the whole point is that there is no evidence of how energy etc is formed, so technically how can you believe in it? how is anything formed, maybe none of this is real? we don't know. we will never know until we die. for all we know god could be proven in years to come, so i think atheists should at least keep their minds open to it, even though i know many already do. tbh i don't really want to delve deeper into the universe as i have just completed my LC biology exam and want nothing to do with science for the rest of my life, more of an arts person myself :L
    Energy in this post being the energy at the start of the universe? There isn't stuff concrete to my understanding on it. And what there is currently being discussed, I don't know the ins and outs of. Haven't gotten to reading in depth on quantum mechanics. If you want to read more about what is known on the issue, I'd recommend looking up quantum fluctuations.

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17721/physical-laws-prior-the-big-bang-quantum-fluctuations
    http://phys.org/news/2012-03-physicists-physics-primordial-quantum-fluctuations.html

    We will not know anything when we are dead. We'll be dead. And we do keep an open mind. That is why we ask for evidence. If we weren't interested in it, then we wouldn't ask. I don't really care whether you are trolling or not. It's pretty far into the likelihood that you are a troll. That's fine though. Reminds me of things I can point out in the thread.


  • Options
    #335
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    123 LC wrote: »
    but where do you get the right to claim that an opinion which is based on no evidence is ridiculous?

    Because for an opinion to be worth anything it needs evidence to back it up! How is that hard to understand?
    123 LC wrote: »
    this is more than likely a statement made by a scientist. but the thing is with religion, which atheists don't accept, is that we don't need proof to accept there is a god.

    The reason that faith is a fundamental part of religion is because there is no evidence to support, therefore it is the only way to con people into believing it.
    123 LC wrote: »
    i respect people who stick with their own opinion though, i won't be swayed from mine, and i know you won't from yours. all i ask is for atheists to accept that we believe in religion without evidence, and i thinks it's pointless that many seem to spend so much time trying to change peoples minds, ye are often like a cult/religion in your own right (for the record i don't agree with other religions that attempt to convert people either)

    I really hate this argument. Religious people get into a debate with atheists and then always resort to "Why do you always try to force your opinion on others". If we weren't having a debate based on religion and atheism do you think I would bring it up?

    As you pointed out, the fundamental problem between religious people and atheists, which is rather convenient for the Religions of the world, is that the religious require no evidence where as atheists do. That is why someone is an atheist.


  • Options
    #336
    morgans303
    Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭morgans303


    Atheism will never completely beat religion. The reason is simple. Humans are programmed to be superstitious, and believe in things they don't understand. There's a part of the brain that lights up when humans pray. It's just human nature. I myself have no faith, but that is my observation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm reading Genesis, as it presents itself. There's good reason to read it in this way. The Hebrew text gives us good reason to think that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are poetic passages. Indeed, the text is more valuable to Christians when read in this way than attempting to read it as a science book. The intention of Genesis is not to go through a minutiae description of Creation, but rather it is to show the incredible authority of God over it.
    Would you not take the interpretations of wall drawings of cavemen or ancient tribes etc as being more truthful than the bible? I meat they're older right....


  • Options
    #338
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    smash wrote: »
    Would you not take the interpretations of wall drawings of cavemen or ancient tribes etc as being more truthful than the bible? I meat they're older right....

    Age has nothing to do with truth. I'm sure you know this :)

    If something is true - it doesn't matter how old or how young it is.


  • Options
    #339
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Sarky wrote: »
    Also lol at kalam argument. It has about the same validity these days as "rocks don't evolve, so where did they come from? IT MUST BE GOD!"

    That's not the argument, but I can understand why you'd be keen to misrepresent it. The cause is not physical, because it created all matter and energy.

    Overall there are no good arguments for atheism.


  • Options
    #340
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm reading Genesis, as it presents itself. There's good reason to read it in this way. The Hebrew text gives us good reason to think that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are poetic passages. Indeed, the text is more valuable to Christians when read in this way than attempting to read it as a science book. The intention of Genesis is not to go through a minutiae description of Creation, but rather it is to show the incredible authority of God over it.

    My thoughts on it would be that anyone could write such a passage. It doesn't require any knowledge as to how a God created the universe. If it was divinely inspired wouldn't it be more specific? There is nothing in the passage that represents absolute truth or evidence of a God that can create a universe. It just reads as someone who would write a passage, from those times, with their limited knowledge of how the universe came to be.


  • Options
    #341
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Opticom wrote: »
    That's not the argument, but I can understand why you'd be keen to misrepresent it. The cause is not physical, because it created all matter and energy.
    Prove it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    philologos wrote: »
    Age has nothing to do with truth. I'm sure you know this :)

    Just earlier you said the bible should be taken as truth because it's the oldest written manuscript on earth.
    philologos wrote: »
    If something is true - it doesn't matter how old or how young it is.
    But define true in the context of the bible if it's cause to be true is not based on it's age?


  • Options
    #343
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    shizz: The answer to that question, means asking a different question. What is Genesis intended to do? - The answer seems to be to point to God's majesty and authority over Creation. As for how exactly Creation worked out at God's command, that's up for further investigation as far as I can tell. The purpose of Genesis is to describe the very beginnings of Creation and God's relationship with mankind.

    smash: Please read my posts. I never said that. It's quite frustrating when you continue to make false assumptions about what I believe.


  • Options
    #344
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Opticom wrote: »
    That's not the argument, but I can understand why you'd be keen to misrepresent it. The cause is not physical, because it created all matter and energy.

    Overall there are no good arguments for atheism.

    One good argument for atheism is religion itself.


  • Options
    #345
    123 LC
    Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭123 LC


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    We will not know anything when we are dead. We'll be dead. And we do keep an open mind. That is why we ask for evidence. If we weren't interested in it, then we wouldn't ask. I don't really care whether you are trolling or not. It's pretty far into the likelihood that you are a troll. That's fine though. Reminds me of things I can point out in the thread.

    you have kind of contradicted yourself here, have you not kept your mind open to heaven etc. I think it's hurtful everyone thinks i'm trolling just because i have an opinion that isn't the norm :L :L


  • Options
    #346
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And here was me thinking "there's no evidence that a god of any sort exists" is actually a really quite good argument for atheism. Well that's me told. What great myth will Opticom debunk next? Global warming? The alleged "link" between smoking and lung cancer?


  • Options
    #347
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    123 LC wrote: »
    you have kind of contradicted yourself here, have you not kept your mind open to heaven etc. I think it's hurtful everyone thinks i'm trolling just because i have an opinion that isn't the norm :L :L
    We can only keep an open mind while we are alive. The post death open mind is a bit more literal rather than the metaphor we prefer it as.


  • Options
    #348
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    philologos wrote: »
    shizz: The answer to that question, means asking a different question. What is Genesis intended to do? - The answer seems to be to point to God's majesty and authority over Creation. As for how exactly Creation worked out at God's command, that's up for further investigation as far as I can tell. The purpose of Genesis is to describe the very beginnings of Creation and God's relationship with mankind.

    Mmmmm these two are contradictory no? You first say that it is a passage that describes the power of God over creation and next you say it describes the very beginning of creation?

    Which is it?


  • Options
    #349
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sarky wrote: »
    And here was me thinking "there's no evidence that a god of any sort exists" is actually a really quite good argument for atheism. Well that's me told. What great myth will Opticom debunked next? Global warming? The alleged "link" between smoking and lung cancer?

    For the record, I don't think you've debunked the kalam cosmological argument in any reasonable manner.

    There's still the issue of causation in respect to Creation.
    shizz wrote: »
    Mmmmm these two are contradictory no? You first say that it is a passage that describes the power of God over creation and next you say it describes the very beginning of creation?

    Which is it?

    I don't believe they are. God's majesty and authority over Creation has a lot to do with what our place is in it. God is Lord over all Creation, and we can live under His authority, or we can rebel against it. That's entirely consistent. By the by, you know that Genesis has 50 chapters, not just 2?


  • Options
    #350
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    For the record, I don't think you've debunked the kalam cosmological argument in any reasonable manner.

    There's still the issue of causation in respect to Creation.
    You, by standing with the Kalam propose everything has a cause. I shouldn't even have to say the next bit it is such a self evident argument. If nothing has a cause, why should we suspend it for a supernatural causal agent?


  • Options
    #351
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You, by standing with the Kalam propose everything has a cause. I shouldn't even have to say the next bit it is such a self evident argument. If nothing has a cause, why should we suspend it for a supernatural causal agent?

    Every finite contingent thing has a cause. I've explained the infinite regress multiple times before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't believe they are. God's majesty and authority over Creation has a lot to do with what our place is in it. God is Lord over all Creation, and we can live under His authority, or we can rebel against it. That's entirely consistent. By the by, you know that Genesis has 50 chapters, not just 2?

    Well they are. You described to me that the purpose of genesis is not to show exactly what happened at the creation of the universe and that you believe that it shows Gods power over creation instead. Then you say that it describes the very beginnings of creation, which would to be taking it in a literal sense. It's obvious we are just referring to the first 2 considering we are talking of the initial creation?


  • Options
    #353
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Every finite contingent thing has a cause. I've explained the infinite regress multiple times before.
    Did you miss the post that responded to yours? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78616005&postcount=380


  • Options
    #354
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    philologos wrote: »

    Every finite contingent thing has a cause. I've explained the infinite regress multiple times before.

    If by explain you actually mean "it's freaking magic, that's why", then yes, yes you have explained it.

    Otherwise, you just hid behind the tired old "god doesn't count" excuse. What about the even more transcendant being that created god? You're doing a massive disservice to the creator of the creator of the universe by assuming the buck stops there.


  • Options
    #355
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    shizz wrote: »
    Well they are. You described to me that the purpose of genesis is not to show exactly what happened at the creation of the universe and that you believe that it shows Gods power over creation instead. Then you say that it describes the very beginnings of creation, which would to be taking it in a literal sense.

    It describes the very beginnings of Creation and God's relationship with mankind. Yeah it does. I don't see how that is inconsistent. Perhaps you might want to explain a little more. I also believe chapters 1 and 2 describe Creation from the perspective of God, and from the perspective of His authority and Lordship over it.
    Sarky wrote: »
    If by explain you actually mean "it's freaking magic, that's why", then yes, yes you have explained it.

    Otherwise, you just hid behind the tired old "god doesn't count" excuse. What about the even more transcendant being that created god? You're doing a massive disservice to the creator of the creator of the universe by assuming the buck stops there.

    No, I just fail to see how an intelligent Creator as a possibility is any more unreasonable than some of the other possibilities that those who present godlessness present.


  • Options
    #356
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    philologos wrote: »
    Every finite contingent thing has a cause. I've explained the infinite regress multiple times before.
    Every time you are asked to explain something, you link to a post containing nothing but your biased opinion based mostly on 'god did it' theories, in which you also link off to other posts. It's like a treasure trail of mind fcuk with no actual treasure at the end.


  • Options
    #357
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Sarky wrote: »
    And here was me thinking "there's no evidence that a god of any sort exists" is actually a really quite good argument for atheism. Well that's me told. What great myth will Opticom debunk next? Global warming? The alleged "link" between smoking and lung cancer?

    Refusing all known evidence does not mean a God cannot exist, but as you're going to do that, we'll skip to the bit where you can try and prove for us how absence of evidence is proof of absence.

    Still waiting on a good argument for atheism . . .


  • Options
    #358
    123 LC
    Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭123 LC


    shizz wrote: »
    Because for an opinion to be worth anything it needs evidence to back it up! How is that hard to understand?

    The reason that faith is a fundamental part of religion is because there is no evidence to support, therefore it is the only way to con people into believing it.

    I really hate this argument. Religious people get into a debate with atheists and then always resort to "Why do you always try to force your opinion on others". If we weren't having a debate based on religion and atheism do you think I would bring it up?

    As you pointed out, the fundamental problem between religious people and atheists, which is rather convenient for the Religions of the world, is that the religious require no evidence where as atheists do. That is why someone is an atheist.

    but why must it have evidence, it's an opinion, it's what you think and believe!
    With phrases like ''it is the only way to con people into believing it'', you aren't really doing much good for the fact that you force atheism on us.

    i can similarly say i hate the argument that religous people just conveniently believe in a god, and thats that. for me there there is so much more to religion than the simplistic demeaning way that ye seem to discuss it, as if religious people are completely thick, as if we can't understand your argument...i understand it, but i still really don't believe it.


  • Options
    #359
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Did you miss the post that responded to yours? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78616005&postcount=380

    Shh, he's pretending to ignore that guy!


  • Options
    #360
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Opticom wrote: »
    Still waiting on a good argument for atheism . . .

    A non belief based on a complete lack of actual evidence is argument enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    123 LC
    Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭123 LC


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    We can only keep an open mind while we are alive. The post death open mind is a bit more literal rather than the metaphor we prefer it as.

    unless we have a spirit which is what i believe, which i know you don't, and i accept that.


Advertisement