It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
85
86
87
88
89
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Brasas: The dilemma is whether existence is accidental or intended.
I assume you believe the universe is not eternal. If so, do you consider its origin to have been accidental or intended?
avatar
Soyeong: If you're given an infinite past, then it makes no sense to say that something is possible, but that it wouldn't happen. The heat death of the universe is possible, therefore it happened sometime in the infinite past. So either the universe has a finite past, or something caused the present state of the universe to be something other than heat death. If the universe has a finite past, then it had a beginning, and something caused it. Either way, there is something that is responsible for causing the present state of the universe. I do not see how this could be an accidental cause.
Great question and answer, here's a good debate about something from nothing ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Potzato: Is the thread going in its quantum physics phase with the rupture of symetry ?
Could be, though I don't think it's relevant to the question at hand. There are no known physical causes, but that does not mean there is no physical cause, and even if there were no physical cause, there it does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent non-physical cause that we are unable to use science to detect. If it doesn't eliminate that possibility, then to use it against a proof for an intelligent non-physical cause is begging the question.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
nadenitza: Great question and answer, here's a good debate about something from nothing ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U
Thanks. I think there is good reason to consider Dawkins to be an authority on biology. I have no idea why people consider him to be an authority on philosophy and religion. That's not to say he can't be correct on those topics, it's just that he shouldn't be the first place you look.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
nadenitza: Great question and answer, here's a good debate about something from nothing ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U
avatar
Soyeong: Thanks. I think there is good reason to consider Dawkins to be an authority on biology. I have no idea why people consider him to be an authority on philosophy and religion. That's not to say he can't be correct on those topics, it's just that he shouldn't be the first place you look.
A religious person shouldn't be the first place you look either.
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: Thanks. I think there is good reason to consider Dawkins to be an authority on biology. I have no idea why people consider him to be an authority on philosophy and religion. That's not to say he can't be correct on those topics, it's just that he shouldn't be the first place you look.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: A religious person shouldn't be the first place you look either.
It's not like religious who are experts in their field are unqualified to speaking on matters in their field. Everyone has bias and non-religious people have just as much bias going the other direction. It's better to read experts from both sides and start with the things that they both agree on. Read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology, but he's no better than your average layman when it come to philosophy.

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

- Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: A religious person shouldn't be the first place you look either.
avatar
Soyeong: It's not like religious who are experts in their field are unqualified to speaking on matters in their field. Everyone has bias and non-religious people have just as much bias going the other direction. It's better to read expert from both sides and start with the things that they both agree on. Read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology, but he's no better than your average layman when it come to philosophy.

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

- Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University
So a scientist isn't someone you should refer to, but a christian priest should be one of those people you refer to?
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: So a scientist isn't someone you should refer to, but a christian priest should be one of those people you refer to?
If you weren't paying attention the first time, I said to read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology. Being a scientist does not make you an expert on religion or philosophy. Similarly, being a priest does not make you an expert on science or philosophy. All I'm saying is that you should look first to experts in a field to learn about that field.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: So a scientist isn't someone you should refer to, but a christian priest should be one of those people you refer to?
avatar
Soyeong: If you weren't paying attention the first time, I said to read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology. Being a scientist does not make you an expert on religion or philosophy. Similarly, being a priest does not make you an expert on science or philosophy. All I'm saying is that you should look first to experts in a field to learn about that field.
But the religious are the ones who think they know what happened. Scientists try to find out yet don't think they know things they do not, and if they're wrong they're willing to admit it.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If you weren't paying attention the first time, I said to read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology. Being a scientist does not make you an expert on religion or philosophy. Similarly, being a priest does not make you an expert on science or philosophy. All I'm saying is that you should look first to experts in a field to learn about that field.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: But the religious are the ones who think they know what happened. Scientists try to find out yet don't think they know things they do not, and if they're wrong they're willing to admit it.
Both religious and non-religious people have bias. I don't know why you think they both can't try to do their best to objectively look at the facts and follow where they lead. Some atheists have done that and become Christians, and vice versa.

I've admitted that I am wrong in the past, I'm sure I currently hold things to be facts that are actually false, and I will certainly be wrong about things in the future. Thus us the nature of learning. Theists aren't any less interested in seeking the truth and aren't any less willing to admit they are wrong.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: But the religious are the ones who think they know what happened. Scientists try to find out yet don't think they know things they do not, and if they're wrong they're willing to admit it.
avatar
Soyeong: Both religious and non-religious people have bias. I don't know why you think they both can't try to do their best to objectively look at the facts and follow where they lead. Some atheists have done that and become Christians, and vice versa.
Because one side has a vested interest in keeping their belief alive at the cost of being factual.

I've admitted that I am wrong in the past, I'm sure I currently hold things to be facts that are actually false, and I will certainly be wrong about things in the future. Thus us the nature of learning. Theists aren't any less interested in seeking the truth and aren't any less willing to admit they are wrong.
Only if the "truth" upholds their religious views. Otherwise they look the other way.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Because one side has a vested interest in keeping their belief alive at the cost of being factual.
If Christianity is false, then I want to know. If Christianity is true, then I'm sure you'd want to know. Whether it is true or not is an important truth that has an impact on how we should live our lives, so everyone has a vested interest in the truth.

Only if the "truth" upholds their religious views. Otherwise they look the other way.
Only if the "truth" upholds your non-religious views. Otherwise you look the other way. There are scholarly books about the evidence for Christianity and won't even get your head out of the ground long enough to even admit there is evidence.
Posted February 03, 2014
Wrong, if there were proof I'd change my views. But the fact is you have just as much evidence as any other believer of any other religon has about their own. Which is exactly 0.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: The page shows examples of words mentioning Christians, Christus and Christian beliefs but I doubt these sources are reliable. The words of Tacitus can easily be faked and the words of other writers of that time can easily be faked.
No need for historical scholarship when you can simply just hand wave everything. With this level of skepticism, you also call into question the existence of other figures of antiquity.
During the middle ages, when Christians had a lot of power, they could of found the real writings of Tacitus and had monks edit them to aid in the spread of Christianity.
What's that line? Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And even if the examples on the page truly came from those writers, all that proves is there was a man named Jesus who Christians worshiped. A man who was crucified for pissing people off. So your evidence if reliable, doesn't prove he is a son of god who can do miracles.
Of course not, I never claimed it did. It's far more intellectually honest to admit that Jesus existed, but doubt that he performed miracles. It's ok to admit there is evidence for something even if you think the evidence is insufficient to justify your belief. Even if you don't think Jesus existed, you should at least be willing to say that someone can look at these works, consider them to be authentic, and draw the rational conclusion that Jesus existed.


avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Wrong, if there were proof I'd change my views. But the fact is you have just as much evidence as any other believer of any other religon has about their own. Which is exactly 0.
A claim which I note that you continue to refuse to back up.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 03, 2014
How do you produce evidence for nothing? That's like asking me produce evidence for you having no sixth toe.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: The page shows examples of words mentioning Christians, Christus and Christian beliefs but I doubt these sources are reliable. The words of Tacitus can easily be faked and the words of other writers of that time can easily be faked.
avatar
Soyeong: No need for historical scholarship when you can simply just hand wave everything. With this level of skepticism, you also call into question the existence of other figures of antiquity.

During the middle ages, when Christians had a lot of power, they could of found the real writings of Tacitus and had monks edit them to aid in the spread of Christianity.
avatar
Soyeong: What's that line? Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And even if the examples on the page truly came from those writers, all that proves is there was a man named Jesus who Christians worshiped. A man who was crucified for pissing people off. So your evidence if reliable, doesn't prove he is a son of god who can do miracles.
avatar
Soyeong: Of course not, I never claimed it did. It's far more intellectually honest to admit that Jesus existed, but doubt that he performed miracles. It's ok to admit there is evidence for something even if you think the evidence is insufficient to justify your belief. Even if you don't think Jesus existed, you should at least be willing to say that someone can look at these works, consider them to be authentic, and draw the rational conclusion that Jesus existed.

avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Wrong, if there were proof I'd change my views. But the fact is you have just as much evidence as any other believer of any other religon has about their own. Which is exactly 0.
avatar
Soyeong: A claim which I note that you continue to refuse to back up.
This level of skepticism is why I'm not wearing a tin foil hat and don't believe the tooth fairy takes the the teeth of children and gives them money in return. I believe what I've seen, what I've experienced and what is backed up by science. Is that so wrong? I've never seen "God", heard his voice or felt his presence. I've never seen the spirit of Jesus, heard his voice or felt his presence. Yes, I know the spirit of Jesus = "God". I've never seen "God", protect the people who believe in him. Sure, I've heard Christians claim they communicate with him regularly but I don't know if they were just dreaming or lying or telling the truth. None of them were my friends. And if "God" is real, I wouldn't worship him anyway. He is obviously not a loving god. If he is real, his behavior has revealed to us, he wants all humans to suffer. I do wonder, if other figures from history truly existed. You do know, that people are capable of lying or exaggerating, right? People also enjoy writing fiction. Two thousand years from now, if they find a capsule with comic books, they might think Batman was real. OR if they found a time capsule with a magazine about celebrities, they might think Justin Bieber is a god, we worshiped.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Pages:
1
25
50
75
85
86
87
88
89
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)