Page 69 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1045

Thread: Exposing Atheistic Myths

  1. Top | #681
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,054
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.
    If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.
    From Genesis god is the creator. Would not he, she, or it be able to change reality as desired?

    He, she, or it brought down the flood did he, she, or it not?

    People claim miraculous cures from god. For the believer god controls reality.

  2. Top | #682
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.
    If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.
    From Genesis god is the creator. Would not he, she, or it be able to change reality as desired?

    He, she, or it brought down the flood did he, she, or it not?

    People claim miraculous cures from god. For the believer god controls reality.
    Well, that's quite my point. How would such an action break any sort of "law"? What law, if they have created said laws in the first place, and govern them?

  3. Top | #683
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Agnostics are fence sitters, maybe yes maybe no. I don't think there is a god but I think there may be some kind of cosmic intelligence, or maybe....
    Agnostics are people whose rule is not to pretend at knowledge where none yet exists. It is a position on epistemology, not theism.
    An agnostic can be any number of categories. Atheist agnostic for one.

    It is avoiding the issue. God exists, does not exists, or you are unsure. Make a choice or sit on a fence.
    Decisiveness in all situations, whether or not your decision has a reasonable basis, is not the inherent virtue some people seem to think it is.

  4. Top | #684
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,948
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,988
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Probably because its not Gods world any more.
    He wasn’t powerful enough to keep it, eh?

    Interesting to think about - who did he lose it to? (Or give it to)
    Who or what was too powerful for god to resist?
    A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

    (best I could come up with at the moment )

    I take it you don’t camp?

  5. Top | #685
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,470
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,277
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Probably because its not Gods world any more.
    He wasn’t powerful enough to keep it, eh?

    Interesting to think about - who did he lose it to? (Or give it to)
    Who or what was too powerful for god to resist?
    A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

    (best I could come up with at the moment )
    This is an absolutely classic example of what I was talking about when I mentioned how that every attempt to resolve the Problem of Evil attenuates one or more of the Omni-'s in question. Why would one be tempted to toss out the entire bowl of soup if a fly fell in it? Because that individual lacks the ability to be sure that not only has the fly been removed but that all vestiges of fecal material on which the fly might have been crawling earlier have also been removed.

    But an omnipotent god would be able to excise exactly the fly and every atom of fecal material from the bowl while leaving the completely untainted remainder of the soup completely intact. And an omniscient god would be able to know with unimpeachable certainty that this had been done and there remained no risk of eating fecal material by consuming the soup.

    And if the metaphor is then applied to the real-world context wherein "god" destroyed nearly every animal on the planet via drowning the problem of "omni-benevolence" rears its ugly head. The flood would be the metaphorical tossing-out of the bowl of soup for a fresh one. But this isn't soup we're talking about, it's people and animals. And lest we allow ourselves the callous tendency to think of a million deaths as a statistic let's consider one single child, maybe a 6 year old girl who has a mommy and daddy who protects her from all the bad things in the world. Along comes the flood waters, destroying their home. She watches in horror as her parents are swept away from her, leaving her to struggle and gasp for air, her arms growing more and more fatigued until that horrible moment comes when she can no longer stay afloat. It takes a couple of minutes for the brain to completely lose consciousness through asphyxiation and the sensation is indescribably torturous.

    According to this myth, this is the method which the most benevolent creature in all of existence chose purposefully in order to exact the death penalty on billions of life forms on the planet. Somehow religious ideology manages to brainwash people into being incapable of seeing the disconnect here, which after I escaped that mental prison I find fascinating.

  6. Top | #686
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,382
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,421
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

    (best I could come up with at the moment )
    This is an absolutely classic example of what I was talking about when I mentioned how that every attempt to resolve the Problem of Evil attenuates one or more of the Omni-'s in question. Why would one be tempted to toss out the entire bowl of soup if a fly fell in it? Because that individual lacks the ability to be sure that not only has the fly been removed but that all vestiges of fecal material on which the fly might have been crawling earlier have also been removed.

    But an omnipotent god would be able to excise exactly the fly and every atom of fecal material from the bowl while leaving the completely untainted remainder of the soup completely intact. And an omniscient god would be able to know with unimpeachable certainty that this had been done and there remained no risk of eating fecal material by consuming the soup.

    And if the metaphor is then applied to the real-world context wherein "god" destroyed nearly every animal on the planet via drowning the problem of "omni-benevolence" rears its ugly head. The flood would be the metaphorical tossing-out of the bowl of soup for a fresh one. But this isn't soup we're talking about, it's people and animals. And lest we allow ourselves the callous tendency to think of a million deaths as a statistic let's consider one single child, maybe a 6 year old girl who has a mommy and daddy who protects her from all the bad things in the world. Along comes the flood waters, destroying their home. She watches in horror as her parents are swept away from her, leaving her to struggle and gasp for air, her arms growing more and more fatigued until that horrible moment comes when she can no longer stay afloat. It takes a couple of minutes for the brain to completely lose consciousness through asphyxiation and the sensation is indescribably torturous.

    According to this myth, this is the method which the most benevolent creature in all of existence chose purposefully in order to exact the death penalty on billions of life forms on the planet. Somehow religious ideology manages to brainwash people into being incapable of seeing the disconnect here, which after I escaped that mental prison I find fascinating.
    And according to many adherents the child was evil and had to be destroyed. Even today, the most innocent and defenseless infant is condemned and filthy with sin until cleansed. It literally takes a depraved mind to adhere to same.

    Perhaps the behavior is a carryover from times when human bands routinely annihilated each other and took their resources because this was as far as their kit of problem solving skills could take them.

    You are right however, it is fascinating to observe.

  7. Top | #687
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,920
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,420
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    And according to many adherents the child was evil and had to be destroyed.
    Or was going to grow up to be evil, and God had absolutely no option but to drown her along with the evil ones...

  8. Top | #688
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,488
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,961
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    Kith, that is the basis of materialism atheism. No minds were around when the Big Big happened, planets were forming, stars were forming etc.
    no. You are wrong. Quel suprise.

    The basis of atheism is that i do not believe in gods.

    I do not believe human minds were around more than, i dunno, 2 million years ago?

    But there is still a lot of room between 'human mind' and 'god' for other minds to exist, or have existed. Do you have any evidence that there have never been any othrr minds?
    Holy mother of God, Keith!!!
    He just goes by Keith here.

  9. Top | #689
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,488
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,961
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Probably because its not Gods world any more.
    He wasn’t powerful enough to keep it, eh?

    Interesting to think about - who did he lose it to? (Or give it to)
    Who or what was too powerful for god to resist?
    A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

    (best I could come up with at the moment )
    This implies God discarded the universe (or at least Earth). This is pretty much untold in the holy book(s).

  10. Top | #690
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,661
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

    How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

    Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?
    Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

    Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

    Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.
    Is the grass no longer green when observed by a colorblind person... or felt by a fully blind person... or read about by a retarded person barely comprehending a really poorly written description?

    Color may be an attribute of something we might call an "object".. but differences in perception leave the color unchanged. It's not a "problem" for anyone except those that wish to be dishonest and exploit such differences in perception as a difference in existential attributes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •