Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > »  
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Irrational Atheism
[ Standard ] · Linear+
Why do atheists accuse Christians of being irrational, dogmatic, and unwilling to defend their beliefs, and yet when they themselves are confronted with logic, they behave exactly as do their conception of Christians?
 
1) Because they are uneducated dolts? [ 19 ] ** [28.79%]
2) Because they fall prey to their heuristic biases like all men. [ 16 ] ** [24.24%]
3) Because they have their sh*t together [ 31 ] ** [46.97%]
Total Votes: 66
Guests cannot vote 
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 14 2011, 06:56 PM
Post #16


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173
AOM Replays: 21
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






Yeah it appears thsi was started by Aristotle, then pushed by Aquinas and a few others, then later on refuted by modern philosophers. I don't know that much about philosophy, unfortunately.

Also, there is actually a logical fallacy called 'proof by verbosity' and I think it applies here.

"Argumentum Verbosium (Argumentum Verbosium): AKA Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details."

The intimidation factor is in AC's posts too, as he even called atheists dolts in the poll, is insulting, etc.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RTG
post Sep 17 2011, 07:46 AM
Post #17


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,075
AOM Replays: 90
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-October 08

From: Jews Land, Israel.
Member No.: 70,364






on a letter dated 24 January 1936 a young student asked Einstein whether scientists are praying?

Einstein replied:
"I am doubtful if there is one of the profound scientific minds without a religious feeling.
Anyone who involved in serious scientific inquiry of the universe laws gradually becomes convinced that they embodied the spirit - that spirit is vastly superior to that of man ... In this way scientific investigation leads from scientific feeling to religious feeling in a very special way."

this is my translate from hebrew, so if there is some mistake, forgive me .

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 17 2011, 02:47 PM
Post #18


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOM Replays: 31
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






You know what? I am sorry, but find someone modern please. Not only has a vast quantity of scientific discovery occurred since the time of Einstein (think basic things like the enlightenment of DNA information), but in numerous places have I found many indications that point to the fact that whenever Einstein used the word 'God' to explain something, he simply did so because he could not explain it with the known science at the time.

This same concept can be seen throughout time, era after era. We used to know basically nothing and 'God' or 'gods' was/were used to explain almost everything. Gradually, as time passed and we came to know more and more, the role of a 'God' in explaining things got diminished more and more. It is only a matter of time before people simply own up to the facts.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
4servant
post Sep 17 2011, 03:37 PM
Post #19


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: DOW I Expert
Posts: 3,034
AOM Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 2-July 06

From: Netherlands
Member No.: 89,239






A polytheïsme is way more interresting way of religion, just the god of love and feast is going to have the most followers but thats ok.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RTG
post Sep 18 2011, 01:55 AM
Post #20


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,075
AOM Replays: 90
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-October 08

From: Jews Land, Israel.
Member No.: 70,364






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Sep 17 2011, 10:47 PM)
You know what? I am sorry, but find someone modern please. Not only has a vast quantity of scientific discovery occurred since the time of Einstein (think basic things like the enlightenment of DNA information), but in numerous places have I found many indications that point to the fact that whenever Einstein used the word 'God' to explain something, he simply did so because he could not explain it with the known science at the time.

This same concept can be seen throughout time, era after era. We used to know basically nothing and 'God' or 'gods' was/were used to explain almost everything. Gradually, as time passed and we came to know more and more, the role of a 'God' in explaining things got diminished more and more. It is only a matter of time before people simply own up to the facts.
*


this is the most stupid thing i have red in the last 10 years, sorry major but you don't have a tiny clue about sience, about great minds, you really have no clue.
you are still in school now aren't you? when you will be in college and have a little tiny clue about what sience means, you will see how your post here is so stupid.
read about einstein on viki read it all before you even speak like that .

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KrIzZzY
post Sep 18 2011, 08:59 AM
Post #21


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Platinum VIP Member
Posts: 1,650
AOM Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 4-June 10

Member No.: 103,984

Gamertag: KrIzZzZy





lol at the above

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RTG
post Sep 18 2011, 11:47 PM
Post #22


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,075
AOM Replays: 90
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-October 08

From: Jews Land, Israel.
Member No.: 70,364






An atheist professor of philosophy lectures his class about the problem science have with God all - can. He asks one of the new students to stand.

Professor: Do you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Professor: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Professor: Is God a all- can?

Student: Yes.

Professor: My brother died from cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us were trying to help others who are ill, but God did not. How is this good?

(Student is silent)

Professor: You can not answer, right? Let's start again. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Professor: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From ... God ...

Professor: Right. Tell me son, is there evil in the world?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God created everything, right?

Student: Yes.

Professor: So who created evil?

(Student has no answer)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hate? Ugliness? All of these things exist in the world, right?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So who created them?

(Student has no answer)

Professor: Science says you have five senses to use to identify and serve the world around you. Tell me son, Have you seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Did you hear him?

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted, smelled it? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God?

Student: No sir, I'm afraid not.

Professor: Yet you still believe in him?

Student: Yes.

Professor: According to empirical testing procedures that can be measured, science says your GOD does not exist. What do you say about that, son?

Student: I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem science have.

Student: Professor, is there such thing as "heat"?

Professor: Yes.

Student: And is there such thing as "cold"?

Professor: Yes.

Student: No, sir, there is no such thing.

(The classroom falls silent)

Student: Sir, there are many types of heat, super- heat, mega- heat, white heat or slightly heat, but there is no such thing as "cold". We can heat 458 degrees below zero which would be lack of heat, but we can not go under it. "Cold" is the only word we use to describe the absence of heat. You can not measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, it just its absence.

(Total silence in the classroom)

Student: What about darkness, Professor?is There such a thing called "dark"?

Professor: Yes. What is night if its no darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light , flashing light ... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and this what we call "darkness", isn't it? In reality, darkness does not exist. If it was, you can make darkness darker, right?

Professor: So what's your point, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is that your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: flawed? Can you explain?

Student: You're working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and death, God is bad and God is good. You see the idea of ​​God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can not even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen it yet, much less fully understood either one of them. To view death as the opposite of life is to ignore the simple fact that death can not exist as an independent. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, definitely.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own - eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile when he realizes where the argument leads)

Student: Since no one has never seen the process of evolution in action and is unable to prove that he continues to occur, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you a scientist or a preacher?

(The class is agitated)

Student: Is there anyone in the class has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter)

Student: Has anyone heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched it or smelt it? No one ... So, according to empirical testing procedures that can be measured, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all the respect, how do you want us to trust your lectures?

(The room is silent. Professor stares at the student)

Professor: I guess you need to have believe (faith) them, my son.

Student: That's it, sir. Relationship between man and God is faith.

the student was Albert Einstein...

note : i translate it from hebrew, there can be some mistakes in translation, but i hope i did a good work.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Sep 19 2011, 12:43 AM
Post #23


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068
AOM Replays: 1,239
Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






RTG I am very impressed :)

You are also correct, the most religious people are both the most and the least educated. The people who fall into the traps of atheism are those with enough education to make them epistemologically arrogant, but not enough to humble them.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Sep 19 2011, 12:47 AM
Post #24


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068
AOM Replays: 1,239
Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Sep 14 2011, 05:09 PM)
Also, ArmyCore, I'd like to remind you that topics with titles such as these, nor polls with options such as these, are conducive to the environment we wish to have in the VIP forums :)
*



You know me major, you know how I do, so don't expect anything less from me ;)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RTG
post Sep 19 2011, 12:51 AM
Post #25


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,075
AOM Replays: 90
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-October 08

From: Jews Land, Israel.
Member No.: 70,364






its a circle in life, everyone born with faith in his heart, when they get older, and see things with there flesh and blood eyes, have some troubles here and there, they beginning to question the existence of god, if they had luck and god gave them healthy brain and mind there youth faith will come back to them.

This post has been edited by RTG: Sep 19 2011, 12:52 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Sep 19 2011, 01:34 AM
Post #26


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068
AOM Replays: 1,239
Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 07:17 AM)
time being potentially infinite does not mean that everything was potential at some point.  Time can be finite, or infinite. 
*



Time is proven to be actually finite, but is potentially infinite.

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 07:17 AM)
Observing that entities are in motion does not disprove that not everything was a potential, at some point.  You are basically saying "because I can see people and entitites around me, in motion, then of course there was never a point in time, ever, where there was no actuality (existence) and just potentiality (nothingness).

Then you say because something exists, it can't have existed forever.  Existence is not finite, or at least, you did not prove it here. 
*



Given the mathematics of infinity, this must be the case. If time is potentially infinite, then it must follow that everything potentially existed while nothing actually existed. For example, if you had two swimming pools, A and B, from which water could be exchanged using buckets, but there was a condition imposed which stipulated that Pool B could only pot into Pool A if Pool A already had water, and if this process was carried into infinity, there would be a point, and all points thereafter, where there was no water in Pool A. Given that there is an infinity of points following this point, it must follow that Pool A must be infinitely empty. Hopefully this example makes this argument more clear.


QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 07:17 AM)
Existence is not temporally finite.  This would be an earth shattering proof, if you could really prove this.  
*



Existence must be temporally finite, see pool example. If existence was infinite, it would follow that there would be no existence, according to the rules of causality. I don’t follow why you think this would be earth-shattering anyways, assuming you believe in the big bang, you took this for granted before the debate began.

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 07:17 AM)
Here is the simple way to disprove what you said, and stated much more plainly:

Your conclusion is that existence is finite, and there must been an entity *that exists* that is infinite.

But you just claimed to have proven that existence is finite.  Now you say there exists an entity that is infinite?

To put this VERY simply, this is a complex way of saying 'something cannot come from nothing, so obviously there was something that created everything'.  The simple answer is:  then who created god?
*



The observed rules of causality and existence do not apply to that which created them, the same way that the rules you impose on the “existence” within a computer matrix do not apply to the programmer. The causality I propose exists beyond causality, exists beyond existence. Time cannot apply to that which is beyond time, for example.

You merely push the argument back another level, but asking “what caused God” is not applicable, as causality does not apply, nor would it change anything. You cannot have an infinite regression of causality, so what caused the cause that caused God? Simply put: this causality must have a terminus that exists beyond causality, and it is more parsimonious to assert that that terminus exists at our own level of causality and existence.

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 08:10 AM)
I consulted with my various sources, which of course you would not have access to.
*



You assume a little too much, I have access at my fingertips, 30 blocks away, to one of the largest research libraries in Canada. I would be very surprised if an American had the same access to information that I did, beyond a select few.


QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 08:10 AM)
Anyway, my valued colleagues have provided me with this:

"This is Aristotle's metaphysics, basically. Taken from it, I mean. It's not easily readable because the note-taking style is classic of Aristotle. This is the only style available in his extant works, though some suspect he also wrote dialogues like Plato, now lost.
In general his metaphysics is on the nature of knowing (epistemology) but there is also his theology (as it's called in philosophy), his concept of the Primer Mover. Aristotle's concept of God is nothing like any religion's (except perhaps deism). For Aristotle God is pure thought, contemplating the act of contemplation. "He" is an infinite being that exists outside of the known universe (to Aristotle, a finite thing composed of basic elements and ether, and Earth was his finite universe's center). As far as I recall, his god is kind of unaware of the outside world. But, to be honest, it's a small part of his Metaphysics, which is an important work of philosophy (although he is wrong).
Basically, Aristotle founded many of the principles of deductive logic and proper argumentation. For him, there are certain first principles or axioms of logic, and one was an argument against reductio ad absurdum. For Aristotle, there had to be a "first" cause for everything, and his answer to the universe existing is God. It's not neat philosophically, but that's what he left us with. But despite being a fantastic logician and the founder of the syllogism, his answer is basically "God did it" and we know that's not satisfactory philosophically. For this and other reasons (being such an intellectual authority in many subjects), his work was used by religious philosophers to justify their particular religion for centuries (St. Aquinas for catholicism, Maimonides for Judaism, Avicenna and Averroës for Islam).
The discussion of potentiality and actuality is classic Aristotelian duality. You can also read up on the principal of non-contradiction if you want more info. I recommend The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's commentary."
*



I fail to see how this is germane to the debate, other than to make you feel secure in your assumptions. Furthermore, your “valued colleague” is operating with an incomplete and elementary understanding of Aquinas, whom he only referenced cursorily. The philosophy of Aquinas is quite different, and a great deal more nuanced than Aristotle of Averroes. When doing my undergrad, I had the privilege to study under three well respected experts in Aquinas and Medieval Philosophy. I have no interest in debating ancient philosophy, I am dealing with the here and now, but know that your friend is both uninformed and misguided.


QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 09:32 AM)
A few other logical mistakes:

seeing that actuality cannot actualize itself

This is unsupported.  To also say god exists is to really say that actuality CAN actualize itself, because apparently god created himself and/or has existed forever. 
*



Finite actuality cannot account for actuality, see pool example. Infinite actuality can, and I have stated unequivocally that what we call God is “infinite actuality.”

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 09:32 AM)
One other comment from my esteemed colleagues:

"F**k actual/potential terminology. F**k deduction to argue on the existence of entities.
That is all."
*



Your esteemed colleague has a way with words; a shame he can’t concoct a valid deduction to prove otherwise, nor even tickle my premises or deductions.

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 09:32 AM)
"It seems to me like doubletalk and bull**it and it all starts here: "Any entity exists in either one of two states: actuality or potentiality." This is an argument presented by Aristotle and it is EXACTLY the unmoved mover argument. You can read the wiki on Potentiality and actuality.
However, this concept is more bound up in metaphysics and physics than it is in the concept of god. I think whoever sent that to you found a fancy argument for god by a fancy philosopher and sent it to you because they wanted you to look dumb."
*




That is one of the premises, but it cannot be refuted. Furthermore, your friend has failed to provide you with any ammunition to attack my argument, instead he fumes, helpless, as he knows he is intellectually feeble and lacks the refinement to repel arguments of this magnitude.

I proved the existence of an infinite actuality which is temporally omnipresent, and that existence is both temporally and physically finite. This actuality is what I call God. This is all I proved, nothing more and nothing less.

QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 10:23 AM)
Ok this is the last comment I will pass along sorry.  My renowned colleagues are just emphatic about this regurgitation, that they are bombastic in their commitment to reply with candor and rectitude.
*



They have also, impressively, provided not a single argument or refutation. You might as well ask your dog for help, at least he can bite as well as bark.

This post has been edited by Armycore: Sep 19 2011, 01:43 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Sep 19 2011, 01:44 AM
Post #27


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068
AOM Replays: 1,239
Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 14 2011, 10:23 AM)
basically: using inductive reasoning ("This makes sense, and is logical") is not enough to prove something like God's existence.  You need some empirical evidence or data to prove something like this.

*



The argument is deductive. We are deducing the infinite actuality and cause of causality from what we can observe (that we actually exist, and that there is causality). The only piece of empirical data I need is that “I exist,” from this, all further conclusions can be deduced.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 19 2011, 09:32 AM
Post #28


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173
AOM Replays: 21
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






QUOTE
Existence must be temporally finite, see pool example. If existence was infinite, it would follow that there would be no existence, according to the rules of causality. I don’t follow why you think this would be earth-shattering anyways, assuming you believe in the big bang, you took this for granted before the debate began.


So existence is finite? Then that means God is finite? And this implies he was not always in existence? if so, what created god? Are you saying something can create itself?

QUOTE
. The only piece of empirical data I need is that “I exist,” from this, all further conclusions can be deduced.


No.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cryplex
post Sep 19 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #29


Forever to be Remembered
Group Icon

Group: GOTW Reviewer
Posts: 9,196
AOM Replays: 213
Submissions: 4
Joined: 18-May 09

Member No.: 75,634






I found your God.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RTG
post Sep 19 2011, 12:56 PM
Post #30


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,075
AOM Replays: 90
Submissions: None
Joined: 28-October 08

From: Jews Land, Israel.
Member No.: 70,364






QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 19 2011, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE
Existence must be temporally finite, see pool example. If existence was infinite, it would follow that there would be no existence, according to the rules of causality. I don’t follow why you think this would be earth-shattering anyways, assuming you believe in the big bang, you took this for granted before the debate began.


So existence is finite? Then that means God is finite? And this implies he was not always in existence? if so, what created god? Are you saying something can create itself?

QUOTE
. The only piece of empirical data I need is that “I exist,” from this, all further conclusions can be deduced.


No.
*


you are narrow minded, if you thinks your humen mind can even imagine WHAT GOD IS .
its like asking,
zorn: "tell me RTG, can god do everything? "
RTG:" yes he does "
zorn : "can he make stone which he can't Lift ?"
RTG :" yes he does"
zorn :" tell me my son, how will he do it? "
RTG :" how do you expect me to answer you question that only god can answer"?

you got to think out of the box in order to even start realize what god means.

This post has been edited by RTG: Sep 19 2011, 01:07 PM



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 06:16 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy