Summer means no religion or politics?

[SSH]

Whaaat? We've got another 1103 posts to go to make this the longest thread in the forums. We can't stop now 

And Nacho, you can "believe" that if you like

[Akatosh]

Yeah, sure, why not. It was clear from the beginning that nobody would manage to convince anybody else, but I think we hit all the important points and arguments... from here on, there's not much going to happen outside of shouting at each other.

Also, we unbelievers won anyway. 

[Nacho]

But I want that f*cking record SSH is talking about!!! 

[Stee]

Here is something TerranRich showed me a few days ago. I think it makes some valid points

http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/know-your-major-religions/

[discordance]

From now on I will always think of Jesus as a zombie carpenter. Even though I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. 

[Nacho]

From now on I will always think of Jesus as a zombie carpenter. Even though I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. 

He was a carpenter... and he was dead. And after passing away, he started to walk... A zombie carpenter.

[discordance]

Holy shit. The savior of mankind is a zombie.

Suddenly I feel much better about the zombie apocalypse.

[Akatosh]

Even worse - the guy has raised the dead himself on occasion, effectively making him a lich. ...well, kinda. 

[Khris]

Hey there, agnostic.

Wondering where exactly you stand in this battle between religion on one hand and reason, logic, facts & evidence on the other hand?
Given that both sides regard Cameron, Comfort / Dawkins as a fundamentalist among the respective opposing side, here are some pointers:

Kirk Cameron explains the Darwin-Hitler connection
Ray Comfort uses common sense to debunk evolution
And here's his introduction to a free copy of the Origin of Species they're going to give away at 100 universities (PDF)

Richard Dawkins presents his new book
An extract from the book's first chapter.

(In case you're wondering, Cameron lies like there's no tomorrow, and Comfort has no clue about even basic biology.
And Richard Dawkins doesn't have a degree in theology.
Also note that my "argument" here is a big, fat ad hominem. Hi, SSH!)

[discordance]

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. " Matthew 27:52-53

Holiness = Zombie.  :o

[Akatosh]

I love Germany. We hardly have to deal with the Creationist bullcrap over here. It's really got to suck if you're required by law to teach alternate non-scientific "theories".

[Dualnames]

Miguel leaves the thread!

God does not exist...

No replies?

We win!!!

Weeeeh!

That actually proves the existence of God. If he didn;t exist the world would remain a cruel place.

[LimpingFish]

I've learned that hard-line atheists can annoy me just as much as hard-line theists.

Hooray!

[Lionmonkey]

...excuse me for being a nice person? Some people really like being Altruistic for Altruism's sake.

But if one is being altrustic for the altruism's sake doesn't necessarily mean there's no hidden profit in that.

Lionmonkey:
The axiom doesn't make any statement about A being initially true. If you still don't get it, I give up. But in this case, please stop discussing logic immediately in order to avoid being ridiculed.

I understand your wish to stop trying to explain your point to me. I accept it. But me being unable to understand it the way you do  can not make me stop discussing anything. I'm honestly trying to embrace the information, I just can't blindly believe in it.

I was sort of waiting for that statement. This doesn't say much about the rest of the world's population, but it sure does say a lot about you. I'm sorry that this is the life you chose to live.

What? It's not a lifestyle or something, it's just an opinion. And it is being used only in such discussions.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm sure many others are like me: being nice to other people is not something I do to hide that I'm an egotist longing for appreciation. I actually enjoy spending time with people I like and who like me back. Now, when one of those people needs help, I help them because I like them.
As opposed to: I help them to make them like me.
You could say that the ultimate purpose is me enjoying myself, but that doesn't imply that I don't feel genuine sympathy for other people.

Why doesn't this imply that you  help others to make yourself...like yourself more?

Nacho, I do have something that makes me feel funny about others. Some people that I immediately find suspicious while others I find trustful. Me and more or less everybody else I know.
It's nothing supernatural, really, but because it's something that I can't smell or listen to I called it a 6th sense. And I did threw a bad joke with it.
So, sorry pal. I'm not supernatural.

That's your subconsciousness, analyzing the person's appearance and behaviour, comparing them to your prevous experience with similiar examples, and ultimately deciding how you should feel about the person.

Lionmonkey, you just contradict others for the sake of it.

Really now, who doesn't?

Maybe an example will make you understand. Say you have a statement like:

"If you are a woman and you are German, then you are a woman."

(A = "you are a woman", B = "you are German")

This statement is obviously correct, whether or not you are actually a woman. For every person it is true that if that person is a woman and is German, then that person is a woman.

The axiom simply states that this is true of all statements of the same form: "If A is true and B is true, then A is true."

I don't get this: What is the point of having the  B in the statement? It seem completely irrelevant to me.
And without it the statement is "If A is true, then A is true". While this statement is correct, that's useless, since it's only application is proof of it's own correctness.

So let me rephrase that: if we see or feel something that doesn't seem natural, there's a probability (very close to 1) that it's still just in our head.

Define "natural".

[Khris]

But if one is being altrustic for the altruism's sake doesn't necessarily mean there's no hidden profit in that.

Yes it does. Otherwise it's "pretending to be altruistic".
But, what about a hypothetical situation where I help others but also gain a little something from that?
Should one not help in that case because it's not 100% altruistic? Also, is it bad if what I gain is a reinforced friendship with other people?

What? It's not a lifestyle or something, it's just an opinion.

Maybe, but you're probably making decisions based on that opinion. And somebody without that opinion (e.g. me) would probably decide to do something else. So it clearly has an effect on your path through life.

Why doesn't this imply that you  help others to make yourself...like yourself more?

See first paragraph.

Really now, who doesn't?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that pretty much everybody else in this thread doesn't.

Axioms

Exactly, you don't get it. So either simply accept that in many cases, the axioms being used are obvious thruths, or don't. Whatever it is, please read some webpage that explains axioms, get over the fact you didn't have a clue what they were when you made arguments about them to discredit science and move on. It's getting silly.

"Natural" as in: can be explained using existing knowledge of physics or chemistry or similar.

[Bulbapuck]

I haven't followed this thread since the start, so correct me if I'm wrong

Wasn't your initial argument that there was no way to know this was correct and hence we were believing something that couldn't be proven? Yet now you seem to have realized that it is correct, I quote:

I don't get this: What is the point of having the  B in the statement? It seem completely irrelevant to me.
And without it the statement is "If A is true, then A is true". While this statement is correct, that's useless, since it's only application is proof of it's own correctness.

It seems to me you've realized the axiom is correct and you're now trying to shift your argument to that axioms are pointless.

If that's the case; trust me, they're not pointless.

But as I said, I could have missed something since I haven't read through every post.

[Calin Leafshade]

I'm sorry if this has already been said but to me Atheism is the ONLY sensible position to adopt.

There are quite literally thousands of religions (there are hundreds of christian denominations even).

You cannot hope to choose the correct one since any choice you made would be fundamentally arbitrary.
Each religion has its own holy text, all of which are merely a collection of tall tales, most of which are unverifiable or flat out wrong. (The Jews did not wander the desert for 40 years nor were they ever EVEN IN Egypt.)

Most religious texts are contradictory (The nativity for example) or flat out evil in places (check leviticus or deuteronomy, both are lovely).

If you were to attempt to choose a religion you would have to choose subjectively which would result in you simply choosing the one which you felt was the 'nicest' or 'fairest' but religion is by definition prescriptive. i.e God decides what is right or wrong regardless of what your own moral compass says.

Also there are certain philosophical problems with omnipotence and omniscience.

Can god make an object so heavy he cant lift it?
Can god tell the future? If he can then we live in a deterministic universe.. thus the idea of cosmic Sin is meaningless.

Also what about the idea of heaven?
heaven is supposed to be a perfect place free of sin.. so did god take away our free will? are we essentially robots in heaven?

To me there are so many problems with religion and so much mental gymnastics required to even suggest a god might be possible. It is simply foolish to suspend your rational thinking on this one issue. You wouldnt believe in unicorns without proof or in the face of all available evidence to the contrary so why does God get a free pass?

Also it should be noted that the burden of proof is on the theists not the atheists.

Present a good argument or piece of evidence and I'll rebuff it.. there simply isnt a good argument for the existence of god.. one doesnt exist.

[Scarab]

Firstly Calin, I'd like to state that I'm an Atheist, however some of the grounds for your arguments are a bit flaky, and make your argument seem weaker.

You wouldn't believe in unicorns without proof or in the face of all available evidence to the contrary so why does God get a free pass?

Comparing God to a unicorn doesn't get you anywhere because there's nothing on this earth to suggest that they do. With god however, there's the bible, and the fact that the universe exists (which is not enough for me, but more than enough for many).

Also what about the idea of heaven?
heaven is supposed to be a perfect place free of sin.. so did god take away our free will? are we essentially robots in heaven?

As far as I understand, heaven is not supposed to be a place where we are transported and just exist as we are, but it is a place where you will always be happy. So I'm not sure if the concept of free will applies in the same way. Could be wrong though.

Your other points, however, seem quite sound, although some of the facts you stated I hadn't heard of before, so if you have a link or something that would be good 

As I said, I'm an Atheist through and through, but I feel that we should never stretch examples or manipulate words in order to prove our point, because there's enough hard evidence out there to get us across the line.

Peace 8)
Scarab

[Calin Leafshade]

Comparing God to a unicorn doesn't get you anywhere because there's nothing on this earth to suggest that they do. With god however, there's the bible, and the fact that the universe exists (which is not enough for me, but more than enough for many).

Nope, I disagree.

The existence of the bible is irrelevant. We have the Illiad for the existence of Zeus and the Oddysey for the existence of Minotaurs and yet they are still disregarded as fiction or "something for a more primitive time"

The existence of the universe is NOT evidence of god. It is evidence of the universe. We should distance ourself from that assertion as much as possible.

Ok sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html

You'd think if millions of jews were wandering through a desert SOMEONE wouldve written something about it and the egyptians might have mentioned SOMETHING about their millions of jewish slaves.

As for the nativity the story is all over the place depending on which gospel you read (of the arbitrary ones chosen by some medieval guys to include in the bible)

Ok so Luke says that Mary and Joseph have to travel to Bethlehem for a census (the census of Quirinius, a roman, in AD 6 and 7 many years after the birth of jesus)
Why do they have to travel to Bethlehem? No idea... the romans did not ever demand that people had to travel to their ancestrals homes over 100 miles away for a census.. it would have been anarchy.
The real reason they had to travel the bethlehem was so that the biblical prophecy of the messiah being born in the town of King David could be fulfilled.. Luke lied.

Matthew however says they lived in Bethlehem anyway and moved to Nazereth afterwards... which is not supported by anything.
He also says they have to flee to Egypt to escape King Herod... Who died in about 4BC. So Mattyboy dates the birth of jesus at least a decade earlier. Matthew also mentions Angels, wise men and ofcourse the massacre of the innocents.. all of which are missing from luke and the nativity is entirely missing from Mark and John.

[Scarab]

The existence of the universe is NOT evidence of god. It is evidence of the universe. We should distance ourself from that assertion as much as possible.

True, it's not evidence, although in the universe that we live in, where everything that is made has a maker, you eventually have to get to something which didn't have a maker. Taking this as a given (for argument's sake) one can arrive at two conclusions;
1. An all powerful God, who exists in eternity, made the universe and everything in it.
2. The universe itself is infinite, or it created itself.

Each of these interpretations has pros and cons, both rational and irrational components.
1. Pros:
   It wraps everything up neatly, and leaves no more direct questions
   Cons:
   It defies all laws of physics and science, which it justifies only by defining God as an external figure to these laws.

2. Pros: It is the more rational of the two, taking things that science has observed about the universe and extrapolated it.
   Cons: It is hard to comprehend and raises further questions, as it is bound by the laws of science, as the universe does exist within them.

From what I've seen, this is the strongest argument used by Christians on youtube who intend to prove the existence of God.

Ray Comfort: It annoys me that this guy belittles the oppposing side's argument in order to make it seem incredulous, (like portraying evolution as an instantaneous event which happens after millions of years, instead of many small events which happen over millions of years). This is somthing I really despise, which is why I don't like your unicorn analogy.

Before any decisions are made on a topic such as this, I think it's important to look at both arguments objectively, with an open mind, and not make ridiculous analogies and such which make your view look more credible in comparison. (this is an example of a bad debate, where there is a lot of this going on from both sides.)

peace
scarab