[Guest]

now this will be a friendly argument about atheism verse God

there will be no cussing, funny insults are fine but not just name calling or bashing

I dont know if this topic will survive locking but please keep it open as long as it stays civil as if you dont im afraid this will spill over into other topics, but i understand if you do.

this is a carry over from an arguement in mythical creatures but they asked us to move it

[Guest]

There's a lot you're not saying about your beliefs. Would you care to elaborate. I'm really curious.

My beliefs theologically are irrelevant. Right now I prefer the term demitheist: Somewhere in between theism and atheism. I'll argue for either side. When I said "Logic is God" I was speaking in metaphors. Not making a statement about my beliefs. Now I will try to answer a question with a question. What do you believe is the reason for human existance, in other words, our purpose?

I said that "Logic is God" is a paradox and you obviously find it to be a straightforward statement. I can explain my position, but in order to try to help put my explanation in terms you can relate to, I need to know more about your position or belief system. Do you believe there is an underlying "master" who you've refered to as "him"? How is this "master" related to Logic and to God? You repeat that this master has a will, want, desire, mission. Can you describe those and how they influence the daily lives of human beings. How do you go about explaining the existence of this master and this unseen motive force of "will"?

Don't worry, I'm a natural born linguist, whatever you say, I'm sure I can understand it as long as it's English or French.

To help quantify the gulf between the way you and I think, you have to understand that I do not agree that these things can be "explained" by logic, if by "explained" we mean resolved (leaving no unanswered question).

All questions can be resolved, It's only a matter of time and memory, and how long it takes before earth gets struck by an asteroid large enough to break it into thousands of tiny pieces. Then there's the high probability of life elsewhere that could very well beat us to it.

[Guest]

all ive got in response for james is this new religion of judaism was obviously not the first but was new and weird to alot of people. Now imagine this book mentions these tiny little organisms that are in you intestines and on your skin eating dirt. And these Big Huge animals that would eat you as soon as step on you. Basically the answer is it is not a science book. just as most science books dont mention belief and faith in the world. The bible doesnt mention much science.

The other guess is if you believe the whole creation in 7 days is a metaphor (most non hard core christians do) then you can meld the evolution and creation into one. God created a world for us to grow. To see how a organsim around evil and good would progress and grow. So maybe he created the world in his image or a world that could eventually support us. or maybe even created us to be in his image (he hoped we'd choose good)

The other related is Creationism just as evolution. Maybe evolution didn't happen but the signs are there because as everyone knows god doesn't like obvious miracles in the world anymore. Or rather evolution did happen but to god time is nothing. waiting a few billion years for us to evolve is like seconds. (Eventhough seconds dont mean anything to him either)

But then again some say nephilim and rephaim are giants or cyclops in the bible (i don't) so who knows

Im talking of evolution because He doesnt mention creating dogs in his image either. So either dinosaurs and such are just a means to an end or beauty added to the planet. or your right.

anyway Im going on vacation for awhile so feel free to talk about whatever you want such as the schroud of turin or how in the lost gospels there is mention of Jesus killing people or how meshack and reshack need another rhyming friend.

Or feel free to talk about how right you think i am about everything.

sincerely,

The Ramblin' Man

Edited June 19, 2009 by final

[Guest]

My beliefs theologically are irrelevant. Right now I prefer the term demitheist: Somewhere in between theism and atheism. I'll argue for either side.

So what sort of theism do you kinda have faith in? Some would say that if you are stuck half way between atheism and theism, come judgement day, you will be put in the atheist class if you know what I mean.

Or maybe answer this. If you're any part atheist, that means you don't acknowledge any sort of god(otherwise you would'nt consider yourself atheist). So with that said, what parts of (whatever) religion do you believe? Or do you not actually believe, but think you know enough about a particular religion that you can make arguments for it based on what the followers of that religion believe?

Everyone else on here has been clear as to what their beliefs are. Eventhough final seems to be a little wishy-washy, I still get the sense that he believes in the main parts about his religion, and has enough faith in it to be somewhat satisfied. You are just throwing out random arguments here and there, without really specifying what your true take on all this is. To me you really should'nt be somewhere in between(you still can say you are I geuss. I really don't care). Just makes you look more confused than anyone else who is trying to explain what they believe. I appreciate the arguments you have for both sides, don't get me wrong.

All questions can be resolved, It's only a matter of time and memory, and how long it takes before earth gets struck by an asteroid large enough to break it into thousands of tiny pieces. Then there's the high probability of life elsewhere that could very well beat us to it.

What side of you provoked you to post that comment? Atheist, or theist? Atheists could agree with that and say that's a likely scenario for Earths end(and mankind of course). Theists could say thats possible too, but the only difference would be that it would be an act of God.

[Guest]

So what sort of theism do you kinda have faith in? Some would say that if you are stuck half way between atheism and theism, come judgement day, you will be put in the atheist class if you know what I mean.

Or maybe answer this. If you're any part atheist, that means you don't acknowledge any sort of god(otherwise you would'nt consider yourself atheist). So with that said, what parts of (whatever) religion do you believe? Or do you not actually believe, but think you know enough about a particular religion that you can make arguments for it based on what the followers of that religion believe?

Everyone else on here has been clear as to what their beliefs are. Eventhough final seems to be a little wishy-washy, I still get the sense that he believes in the main parts about his religion, and has enough faith in it to be somewhat satisfied. You are just throwing out random arguments here and there, without really specifying what your true take on all this is. To me you really should'nt be somewhere in between(you still can say you are I geuss. I really don't care). Just makes you look more confused than anyone else who is trying to explain what they believe. I appreciate the arguments you have for both sides, don't get me wrong.

What side of you provoked you to post that comment? Atheist, or theist? Atheists could agree with that and say that's a likely scenario for Earths end(and mankind of course). Theists could say thats possible too, but the only difference would be that it would be an act of God.

Quite simply, when ever anything pertaining to god is brought up, my brain generates two possible outcomes, IF god exists, THEN such and such an outcome. IF god doesn't exist, THEN such and such an outcome. Regarding which side provoked the response, it was neither theist nor atheist, it was scientist.

My religious beliefs are irrelevant because I do not plan on using them, for the only way to get anywhere intellectually is with logic, because the existence of logic is not controversial, unlike God.

[Guest]

... the existence of logic is not controversial, unlike God.

Logic is God.

The last three words, standing alone, make a first rate paradox.

[Guest]

First of all, someone mentioned "The One". By that do you mean some sort of God being? Or more of an idea? The problem I have with this The One is, if you believe there is such a being that created everything (Earth, Universe, whatever), then would it be a stretch for me to say you should believe in an Infinate amount of "The Ones"? If he/she was the creator, and you believe in creation as a way of reasoning, then something had to have created him/her, and something created that one, and something created that one....ect....to infinity. Or do you assume it just appeared one day to do all this? I take a more scientific approach. At least traceing back, it won't lead to an end or beginning that isn't there(I suppose noone knows for sure yet). I do kind of accept the Big Bang, but still have doubts about it. But to me it seems a bit more logical in the way I think and percieve things around me. Also don't think I am in any way missing out on anything because I do not think as deeply about creation, or trying to find the truth, I simply think more in the realm of what the heck is happening in our Universe, and why is it doing what is does, stuff like that. Even though to be honest I don't dwell on that a whole lot either. I just live my life to the fullest, and have as much fun as I can before I am gone. We will all find out the truth one day......when we're dead .

"The One", as I understand and perceive it, is not a being. It does not have a "will" or a "purpose" as humans define those things. So I guess it's more of an idea. It is supposed to be the "source" of all things. If you want to stick strictly with science, you find that at the current frontiers of cosmology and particle physics the Big Bang serves as that "source". Science does not have any answer that unequivocally explains that source, let along where it came from (it's source), etc., etc. And like you, I and many others have a sort of two-pronged response to this fundamental Paradox of "what came first?" We either burn out our circuits trying to pursue the infinite string of cause and effect back to an impossible "first cause", or we simply "smile" and move on to more practical matters closer to home.

So we move back and forth between the "religion" that science ultimately is (absolute unquestioning faith in reason and logic as Romulus seems to express), and some more deeply rooted "faiths" that find their roots in other more ancient parts of the brain. We enjoy coming to this thread and tangling with these deep questions and exploring them from many different perspectives (that's why it's fun to get everybody to share their own unique points of view), but at the end of the day, it's also fun to just set aside the inquiring, curious, parts of our mind and just enjoy some music or a good meal or warm soak in the hot tub--i.e. enjoy some of the many, many things in life that please our animal/physical senses.

[Guest]

... the existence of logic is not controversial, unlike God.

Logic is God.

The last three words, standing alone, make a first rate paradox.

Very Funny

Perhaps I need to explain to you what a metaphor is.

Example 2:

My sister is the devil.

The existence of my sister is not controversial, unlike the devil.

Just in case you still don't get my point

For the English impaired, a metaphor is a sentence where the words "like" and "as" are implied and therefore add emphasis.

"My sister is the devil" is much more severe than "My sister is like the devil."

Logic is like God in that it can rightfully say what can and cannot be, which is similar to how some people envision God.

[hugemonkey]

The universe is indeed created of paradox, but not in the fashion you speak it. But this isn't about antimatter. This is about letting go, letting your soul become one with the insanity, succumbing to the will. You smile as you become immersed in the calling of an unknown will. His call shall be your call, whatever it may be. Know this: In all things logic is master, logic decides what is real, and logic decides what cannot be. Logic is God.

Logic is flawed...but it ca be very useful. Logic on a certain level is nothing more than a word game.

Logic and God do have one thing in common: Although many have tried, you can never use logic to properly explain the validity of logic. And you can never use God (or the Bible) to properly describe the validity of God.

I'm talking about Gödel's Theorem here.

[Guest]

Very Funny

Perhaps I need to explain to you what a metaphor is.

Example 2:

My sister is the devil.

The existence of my sister is not controversial, unlike the devil.

Just in case you still don't get my point

For the English impaired, a metaphor is a sentence where the words "like" and "as" are implied and therefore add emphasis.

Maybe look up the word metaphor. Thats quite the opposite.

Not to mention your example 2 is more of a sarcastic statement than it is a metaphor.

I could post a link if you'd like, as to where to find the correct definition. But I'm sure you know how to use a dictionary, and/or Wikipedia.

[Guest]

Maybe look up the word metaphor. Thats quite the opposite.

Not to mention your example 2 is more of a sarcastic statement than it is a metaphor.

I could post a link if you'd like, as to where to find the correct definition. But I'm sure you know how to use a dictionary, and/or Wikipedia.

Notice I said implied, yes I know the difference between a metaphor and a simile, anyway, enough about English, where were we?

[Guest]

I just found a really strong argument against the existence of god. In Genesis Chapter 1, it can be argued that although it says what god did to create the earth, the exact process by which he did it can be seen as a vague generalization of what happened. However, there is a slight problem. The widely accepted theory of evolution, which is at the current point much more than a theory, shows us that vertebrates evolved in the following manner, a fish grew legs and evolved into an amphibious life form that roamed on the land and in the sea. Then came the evolution of reptiles and their terrestrial eggs, living their entire lives on land. Then came the dinosaurs, which eventually evolved feathers and wings and flew around. This we can say is how things came to be.

When we look at Genesis, however, we see this game plan.

Day 1: Day and Night

Day 2: Sea and Sky

Day 3: Pangea

Day 4: Plants

Day 5: Creatures of the sea, and Birds

Day 6: Creatures of the Earth

Day 7: Take a Siesta

This puts a few things out of order.

Number 1 being that birds evolved from and after the "Creatures of the Earth" not before.

Number 2 being that on day 4, It states that flowering plants evolved, but these plants evolved in the presence of a symbiotic relationship between plants and insects which apparently weren't on the scene.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Romulus064

[Guest]

I'm bumping this because: two or three people are arguing the God vs. atheism thing in a thread that was for a specific argument, a subset within the bigger argument, so I figure they could move over here...

...and nobody's replied to the post above mine! I'd like to see if anyone has a reply

[Guest]

I'm bumping this because: two or three people are arguing the God vs. atheism thing in a thread that was for a specific argument, a subset within the bigger argument, so I figure they could move over here...

...and nobody's replied to the post above mine! I'd like to see if anyone has a reply

I think that the reason that no one has replied to Romulus' argument is because either people agree with him, or they don't accept his underlying premise: that evolution exists. If you accept evolution, chances are you acknowledge that the events described in Genesis are at most a rough approximation and more likely mythical. However, if you deny evolution, then there is no contradiction since there is no counterargument to the listed events in Genesis. GDI (God Did It) (Like QED, but really uncool. )

The evolution of life from the waters to the land over billions of years is the most scientifically complete theory (in the scientific sense, where theories are top dog) that we have for the development of our planet and its ecosystem, but people who refuse to accept the science behind it won't even admit that Romulus' argument has merit. Without an underlying agreed upon basis, there can be no discussion.

You can't have an intelligent debate with someone if you don't both agree on the most fundamental piece. The only person who would be able to argue against Romulus would be the person who accepts evolution as more than a theory (in the colloquial sense, where people really mean hypotheses), but also insists that the events described in Genesis are true. Without those two points, there is no point of contention that can be discussed and like I said, I don't think there are too many of those people who actually think about the issue.

[Guest]

i would like to say something,

A lot of athiests say, "you stupid christian, you think some man in the sky created the world in 7 days!". Then I will say,"how do you think the world was created

?". The other person will say, "it doesnt matter." or "it's irrelevant". I would like my question actually awnsered for once

[unreality]

oh we know how the world was created.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-was-the-earth-created.htm

http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

want more links?

[Guest]

I phrased my question incorrectly, how was the UNIVERSE created.

[unreality]

the same argument doesn't really apply. God created the Earth in 7 days, not the universe. It's implied that the universe already existed, along with god, and that neither created the other, at least that's my understanding of it.

As for the scientific explanation, I don't think we're quite there yet as to how existence itself exists (that's more of "metaphysics"), but we do have fairly concrete evidence from multiple directions that the universe is expanding outward and has been for its lifetime. That suggests the Big Bang but we're still making advances in that field. It's an ongoing process and a relatively modern endeavor to understand these things with scientific rigor - and very hard, as you might imagine. But we're getting there

[Guest]

It says Heaven and Hell were in existance. Earth describes our entire "realm".

[Guest]

I phrased my question incorrectly, how was the UNIVERSE created.

the same argument doesn't really apply. God created the Earth in 7 days, not the universe. It's implied that the universe already existed, along with god, and that neither created the other, at least that's my understanding of it.

As for the scientific explanation, I don't think we're quite there yet as to how existence itself exists (that's more of "metaphysics"), but we do have fairly concrete evidence from multiple directions that the universe is expanding outward and has been for its lifetime. That suggests the Big Bang but we're still making advances in that field. It's an ongoing process and a relatively modern endeavor to understand these things with scientific rigor - and very hard, as you might imagine. But we're getting there

It says Heaven and Hell were in existance. Earth describes our entire "realm".

Yeah, unreality, the thing is that some people don't differentiate between the Earth and the Universe. They believe that both came into existence at the same time. The whole seven days thing encompasses all of "Creation," the Universe, the Solar System, the Earth, Life, et al. Everything in the same time period. As for how they go about that explanation, there are a number of ways.

The non-theists are either in the Universe forever camp (an almost non-existent group now, as I understand it) or the Big Bang camp (growing fast due to better images from Deep Space gathered from the Hubble Telescope and like instruments).

As for theists, I'm not the most qualified to say, but some agree with the scientific views in the big picture (though they may disagree on some of the underlying details), while others go to the far extreme of Creation (the Young-Earthers, YEers) and others hedge themselves somewhere in between. One such view acknowledges the Universe is 14 billion years old but maintains that the "days" of Creation were God's days rather than our own, so therefore it's reasonable to say that Genesis took eons to occur. Of course, literalists and YEers deny this possibility since that requires a nuanced understanding of the Bible, which means that some of the stories may be, well, stories.

In an effort to provide a better answer to panda's question than "It's irrelevant" or "It doesn't matter," I would say that it's a significant question, but atheists say that the jury is still out on how the Universe came into existence. That is, we don't know and we aren't interested in the questions that arise from not knowing. That's why "a lot of atheists" say it's irrelevant. We don't have an answer at this point, but just because we don't know doesn't mean that we should attribute the Creation to God. There are other possibilities that are possible and such, but there is no concrete evidence for any of them anymore than there is evidence for God.

So, while we are examining how the Universe was created, atheists are far more interested in the question how does our Universe work, which still has yet to be adequately answered. We feel (or at least I do) that the question of creation is not as important as understanding the what has been created already. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that there are more significant questions for understanding our surroundings, such as it is. As we continue to better comprehend the Universe, then we may eventually find our way to the fundamental question of what came before. But we aren't there yet. (Of course, that isn't to say that there aren't scientists studying the beginning of the Universe right now, but the vast majority of the scientific world is still working with what exists now, rather than figuring out how the world came about.)

[Guest]

One such view acknowledges the Universe is 14 billion years old but maintains that the "days" of Creation were God's days rather than our own, so therefore it's reasonable to say that Genesis took eons to occur.

Thats me.

[Guest]

Weehoo! Creation of the universe popping up again. This time it's directly related to the topic at hand, but I may have to make a thread for that sometime...

Anyone who doesn't know what baryogenesis is but might be interested in physics should check it out on Wiki or something. It's a cool mystery =)

The non-theists are either in the Universe forever camp (an almost non-existent group now, as I understand it) or the Big Bang camp (growing fast due to better images from Deep Space gathered from the Hubble Telescope and like instruments).

Universe-forever and Big Bang are not mutually exclusive, ya know. It's possible that Big Bangs and Big Crunches have been occurring in cycles ad infinitum. It's also possible that they've been occuring in cycles, but different every time, leading to something I forgot. Another big theory is Big Freeze, and there's plenty of others. Anything's possible! Which is why Physics is so fun.

As for the entire God thing...

Why would there be one special text of Christianity that is thrown into the mix some time in the middle of the history of human existence? Why didn't it come earlier?

Also, sometimes it's more interesting/more easy-to-focus-on if you just concentrate on heaven and hell. (I was going to say the heaven-and-hell debate, but it's not really a debate, just like the God thing isn't a debate either: you believe what you believe and chances are nothing's going to change that. People just sometimes like to argue/bicker because it's fun. But it's only a debate if you're dealing with potential converts. Anyway...) Anyone here believe in heaven and hell, and if so, how would you describe them? I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people are unclear on this point, just like science is unclear on a lot of points. I've one friend who is fairly confident in heaven and hell, but admits she doesn't know how to describe them (are they physical realms or just metaphors or what?) because she just doesn't know (or know yet... she's got some personal truth seeking to do, and I haven't talked to her about this stuff in a long time because it's touchy and I kinda decided that I'd done my pitch, and it was about time to leave well enough alone... I hope she's doing alright. Heh...)

[Guest]

Weehoo! Creation of the universe popping up again. This time it's directly related to the topic at hand, but I may have to make a thread for that sometime...

Anyone who doesn't know what baryogenesis is but might be interested in physics should check it out on Wiki or something. It's a cool mystery =)

Universe-forever and Big Bang are not mutually exclusive, ya know. It's possible that Big Bangs and Big Crunches have been occurring in cycles ad infinitum. It's also possible that they've been occuring in cycles, but different every time, leading to something I forgot. Another big theory is Big Freeze, and there's plenty of others. Anything's possible! Which is why Physics is so fun.

As for the entire God thing...

Why would there be one special text of Christianity that is thrown into the mix some time in the middle of the history of human existence? Why didn't it come earlier?

Also, sometimes it's more interesting/more easy-to-focus-on if you just concentrate on heaven and hell. (I was going to say the heaven-and-hell debate, but it's not really a debate, just like the God thing isn't a debate either: you believe what you believe and chances are nothing's going to change that. People just sometimes like to argue/bicker because it's fun. But it's only a debate if you're dealing with potential converts. Anyway...) Anyone here believe in heaven and hell, and if so, how would you describe them? I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people are unclear on this point, just like science is unclear on a lot of points. I've one friend who is fairly confident in heaven and hell, but admits she doesn't know how to describe them (are they physical realms or just metaphors or what?) because she just doesn't know (or know yet... she's got some personal truth seeking to do, and I haven't talked to her about this stuff in a long time because it's touchy and I kinda decided that I'd done my pitch, and it was about time to leave well enough alone... I hope she's doing alright. Heh...)

Would you question chuck norris? right so don't question his son, god.

[Guest]

lol..... EDIT: just to make this topic appropriate.....

i think that the universe was created by thoughts, not by god, and that the power of positive thinking can help shape your life...

Edited January 13, 2010 by chrispen

[akaslickster]

lol..... EDIT: just to make this topic appropriate.....

i think that the universe was created by thoughts, not by god, and that the power of positive thinking can help shape your life...

You may be on to something here. I really dig your statement. I succeed at the time I am thinking about, improvements all the time. I am one of those folk , who try to make the world a better place to live in.

[Guest]

You may be on to something here. I really dig your statement. I succeed at the time I am thinking about, improvements all the time. I am one of those folk , who try to make the world a better place to live in.

i'm glad you agree with me, because with time comes change, and with time and positive thinking, the change is greater. that's is what i think. i also happen to think that the world runs on imagination, and that nothing would survive if we didn't have a sense of humor!