Atheist vs. Theist
Why is it so important that God exists?
Submitted by Cpt_pineapple on June 23, 2008 - 10:24pm.I've been reading some Theist material, and they seem so willing to hold on to the belief no matter what.
'Oh X theory, doesn't fit? It's not true!'
'Oh, science can't explain Y, it must be God!'
I myself would rather keep X, and find out about Y. These people however, won't.
I've met few Theists that don't think like this.
This is what pissed me off at Haisch's book. He gets into the meditation of the infinite consciousness NDEs etc.., and to support it basically says 'Wouldn't it be nice!' With all the otherwise good content he just had to throw that in and basically ruined it.
It is these types of arguments that piss me off. That they would rather disregard science explanation as awesome as it is and just disregard it or butcher it.
So why is it so important to them that God exists?
Atheism
Submitted by IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH on June 23, 2008 - 7:54pm.In my opinion, of all the numerous faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism to animism to atheism, the most basic and unlikely is Atheism. Religion, unlike science, is the attempt to answer the question why (science attempts to answer how). Animism a slightly less ridiculous faith, answers the question why with the answer of "everything". Atheism denies the existence of the question, because it denies the existence of an answer. Without an answer there is no question. However, since I can ask the question it is obvious that it exists, so there must be an answer.
Besides lets be totally honest and say that its really unlikely that thinking beings such as humans just popped into existence out of nowhere.
ABORT CHRIST!!!
Submitted by OBSCENITEASE on June 23, 2008 - 2:26pm.
Now before you go off and think I’m saying that if the Immaculate Conception was being made manifest down the block... that we should rush over with a Hoover and suck the miracle child from the womb of the Blessed Virgin… let me clarify…
There are as many ideas of what the word ‘Christ’ even means within the culture, so since everyone has their own definition… I’ll assign the following. Christ in this modern culture most points, to me anyway, to the Fundamentalist Christian cult that is trying its damnedest not to become extinct and stay relevant.
Jesus Christ is this god who watches everything that you do and everything that you think. He’s recording every move you make and will ‘hold you accountable’ for everything when you die. ‘He’ has a plan and it’s your job to make sure that you somehow figure out what it is and do it. Can you ever really know what that plan is? Not sure, but the point is that it’s not YOUR plan. You’re asked to submit your will, and consequently the responsibility of your life.
I AM GOD!!!!
Submitted by OBSCENITEASE on June 23, 2008 - 2:17pm.
I realized years ago that 'God' is impossible. If we define 'God' as being infinitely omnipresent... this alone leaves no room for any individual being that is separate from anything. How can a limitless personality that is the Source of All things be separate from anything? If everything proceeds from God, and we know that everything was made by god (by definition as the ultimate creator), then God imagined evil, death, disease, etc. as well as all the 'good' stuff. EVIL AND GOOD must have come from 'God' because he created all that is.
So... if God is infinitely omnipresent, then God lives in the Infidel! Therefore, I know that... I AM GOD.
[Edit: The posting of spam to promote products, sites, or services not affiliated with RationalResponders.com, FreethinkingingTeens.com, Atheistnetwork.com, MargaretDowney.com, AsktheAtheist.com, CelebAtheists.com or any other site in the Rational Response Squad Network roof is strictly prohibited. Interested parties are welcome to take out ad-space at our affordable rates instead. Thank you for understanding. -- Visual_Paradox]
A science test. . .
Submitted by inspectormustard on June 23, 2008 - 8:49am.I'd like to see what grade theists manage on this test (no cheating!). Here's the result of the test I took while drunk:
<a href="http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/science"><img border="0" src="http://www.oneplusyou.com/q/img/bb_badges/science_aminus.jpg" alt="JustSayHi - Science Quiz" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Created by <a href="http://www.oneplusyou.com">OnePlusYou</a></div>
Truly, who are the leading Xian Apologists/Defenders and what are their arguments?
Submitted by daedalus on June 22, 2008 - 7:20pm.It has become absurd. Everytime a Xian posts it is the same few arguments over and over again. We should just respond "See #457" or "That's an Argument from Personal Incredulity. See rebuttal #173"
A little like TalkOrigins has for Evolution.
I am just starting to lose it. Every freakin post is just rehashing the same tired arguments of the last 2000 (or more) years.
Don't we have a responsibility to move forward on these things? The Theists are winning because they keep asking the same questions - AND WE SPEND OUR TIME RESPONDING.
Don't get me wrong, we still need to educate, and sometimes we need to re-engage the old debates to remind people why, say, the Ontological Argument doesn't work as a persuasive argument. Can we start compiling the best responses?
But more to the point, where are the NEW arguments. Theists keep talking about some crazy idea that they have "begun to know more about God" (you know - the Great Unknowable!
).
Paisley = Chancellor
Submitted by ProzacDeathWish on June 21, 2008 - 8:27pm.Ha ha, unless I'm mistaken Paisley is over at the Internet Infidels forum calling himself Chancellor. He's even using the same old lame phrases "lurking god belief" blah blah.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=246452&page3
Faith Healing Families - Disturbing and Dangerous
Submitted by AtheistAviB on June 19, 2008 - 6:37pm.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368863,00.html I have sourced the website (story) from whence my anger and confusion is coming, but will still relay a concise version of the events that have led to the untimely and unnecessary death of another child. Neil Beagley, 16, is dead as a result of an easily treatable "urinary tract blockage". This ailment could have been easily resolved had he gone through a minor procedure involving doctors with medical knowledge and a catheter. Sounds easy enough, but nay; God was going to take care of it. He would do so in quite the same way he took care of Neil's cousin's illness. Oh, that's right. He DIDN'T. Neil's death has occurred just months after his 15 month old cousin Ava died of a blood infection and pneumonia, neither of which are fatal if doctors are informed within a relatively normal period of time. I will avoid one issue that the article comments on, that of his age and the legality of his own decision-making capabilities. That is for another time and another note. However, on what planet does a 16 year old and/or his parents need be informed of the usefulness and the efficiency of medical care?
Does God/Jesus/Deity understand English?
Submitted by Luckhuda on June 19, 2008 - 9:03am.Just a curious question, but given that modern day English is something man-made, i.e has evolved from Latin with influences from French when William the Conquerer invaded England etc etc, also taking into consideration that we had to translate the bible etc ourselves, does god even understand English? If he DOES, why then did he not provide use with an updated version of the holy book so that men wouldn't make so many mistakes in the translations and misinterpret what is supposedly his words?
I don't really know how many theists on this forum actually believe that the bible is the real of god, after reading some of the discussions on here I find it hard to believe there are any...
Todangst's Axioms
Submitted by Presuppositionalist on June 19, 2008 - 2:43am.Hello.
Any foundationalist philosophy has to begin with some properly basic beliefs: some propositions that it is proper to accept which do not require further justification.
Todangst has founded his philosophy upon 3 axioms, taken whole cloth from Ayn Rand's Objectivism: identity ("A is A" ), existence ("existence exists" ), and consciousness ("I am conscious" ). He, and several other members of the forum, are under the impression that it is rational to take these axioms as properly basic, since all three are (1) self-evident and (2) defensible by retortion.
The premise here is: "if a statement is both self-evident and defensible by retortion, it is properly basic". However, that statement is neither self-evident nor defensible by retortion. It is to all appearances a naked, if implicit, assertion.
Am I missing something here?
[mod edit to remove automatic smileys]
