Original Sin?

May 2nd, 2017 at 5:52:30 AM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Randi is cute.
May 2nd, 2017 at 8:09:56 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
I'm a bring Randi fan as well. This video doesn't really speak to your indoctrination theory either. However, it is strange that a "bright" person would fail to realize that logic and reason itself is evidence. Like the rock example he used earlier the question where it came from doesn't require evidence to know without a doubt that some force acted upon it. You might not know what it was but it certainly is truly present. The other thing that I noticed was his suprising inconsistency. If your theory is that you can say you only know something by using your reason, logic, and evidence (no problem here) and if you lack something like evidence then the best you can say is it may or may not be true; then you can't make the leap to atheism, which clearly states that something is not true. He could if he had evidence or in this case even a reason or logic to support him. However, with atheism you have neither evidence, not logic or reason to support you. It just doesn`t make sense and an otherwise brillant guy is being inconsisent. I think his atheism is probably for emotional and personal reasons and he should be more upfront about that.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 2nd, 2017 at 11:09:31 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
I'm a bring Randi fan as well. This video doesn't really speak to your indoctrination theory either.


He didn't go to church. He was kicked
out of Sunday school immediately, he
says, and for years afterward his parents
had no idea he had quit going.

Quote:
I think his atheism is probably for emotional and personal reasons and he should be more upfront about that.


He's an atheist because there's no evidence
of a god, he states that rather clearly. You seem
to have a different definition of what reason
and logic mean, but you would have to if you
need to come to the conclusion there is a god.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 2nd, 2017 at 12:29:15 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: FrGamble
I'm a bring Randi fan as well. This video doesn't really speak to your indoctrination theory either. However, it is strange that a "bright" person would fail to realize that logic and reason itself is evidence. Like the rock example he used earlier the question where it came from doesn't require evidence to know without a doubt that some force acted upon it. You might not know what it was but it certainly is truly present. The other thing that I noticed was his suprising inconsistency. If your theory is that you can say you only know something by using your reason, logic, and evidence (no problem here) and if you lack something like evidence then the best you can say is it may or may not be true; then you can't make the leap to atheism, which clearly states that something is not true. He could if he had evidence or in this case even a reason or logic to support him. However, with atheism you have neither evidence, not logic or reason to support you. It just doesn`t make sense and an otherwise brillant guy is being inconsisent. I think his atheism is probably for emotional and personal reasons and he should be more upfront about that.


I would accept as evidence things people say happened in the Bible that are extraordinary events. Raising the dead. No I'm not counting people rescued out of freezing water. Absolutely, Undeniably and reliably Dead. Not only merely dead, really most sincerely dead.

Just tell me what's wrong with asking for evidence your god has already demonstrated? That I don't accept evidence someone SAYS he is the son of god makes me the reasonable one. Or stories told second hand.

You've obviously seen all these great things before you started believing. Surely you wouldn't ask me to change my life without such evidence first?
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
May 2nd, 2017 at 12:43:46 PM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
I need a word, although in this case it's not due to failure of vocabulary but because it doesn't exist. It basically describes a feeling that consists of rape, frustration, boggling, amusement, interest, mindless anger, and humor. Whatever that word is, it's exactly the word I need to describe how I feel when I see FrG using the exact argument for his case that I would use against him. It's both pleasant and horrible, in near enough equal parts, and I can't tell if I love it or hate it.

What I see, FrG, is you performing the same games with words and meanings that every religious person has ever used, and that part at least I find maddening. You keep referring to this "logic" and using it as your foundation, but it's so GD broken I cannot fathom how you can't see it, or how no one else has been challenging it (and thanks for that, Team Athiest, he says with much sarcasm. Christ, I want to avoid these things, not step up to the plate =p)

Something cannot come from nothing. That's the stone you use, and on that front, I would assume that all would agree. Not even Nareed has come forth with some whackadoo quantum mechanics explanation, and though that topic makes me wonder if something cannot indeed come from nothing, I'm surely not going to argue the point either. So on this, it's safe to say that we all agree.

What you do, and I'm not charging you specifically with this as every single other holy man that has ever existed does it as well, is take one data point and extrapolate an entire series of ridiculous notions and declare them true based on nothing other than one data point. That is madness. That act consists of so many negative traits I'd not try to list them even if my decorum failed and I didn't care of hurting others' feelings.

Science says something cannot come from nothing. Conservation of energy, we learn this before we can even drive. Logic, assuming yours is in working order, would then state that it had to come from somewhere. So what does an atheist do?

Me? Well, it's mostly a masturbatory exercise, but I ponder other scenarios. Maybe the Big Bang where nothing but a dragon's fart. Maybe life, like existence itself, does not exist in alternate dimensions but rather on radically different scales. Perhaps this entire galaxy we're in is nothing but a subatomic particle floating in The Other's world. Maybe an entire universe exists within the molecule of methane I just let loose. Maybe all of existence is nothing but farts, endless farts, stringing on and on beyond eternity. Or maybe (and by maybe I mean really goddamn likely) our good ol' science is still in its infancy. Maybe, we bunch of dumb ol' apes haven't even finished reading the cover and there is a completely testable solution to the something-from-nothing problem. What's with that anti-matter anyway? Maybe nothingness is our stable state, and some catalyst broke it, causing a reaction that busted anti and matter apart, and we're just in some stage of some random reaction with a trillion year timeline. Who knows? I sure don't. And neither does, or more importantly, has, anyone else.

One data point, yet you and your crew claims to know the whole story. C'mon, man.

Can't you see how bloody simplistic your story is? There's a god and he made us in his image. We're just like him, only just a bit lesser. And the hero WAS one of us, just like us, you know, so we can relate. And he was borne of a mother, just like mine. Oh, but there's the antagonist, too. There's drama up top and drama down below. Oh, but this man was a noble man, full of all the qualities a human would enjoy and none of the ones he might shun. But those troublesome folks, they're all bad with none of the qualities one would desire. But in good ol' underdog fashion, the simple and loved triumphs over the big and bad and everyone is oh so happy.

For f#$%s sake, man.

You own book is rife with errors. The word of god, and most of it is junk. So you pop a little allegory tag on this flop, and some hyperbole over that pile, explaining away the very logic you claim to cling to, and don't see the problem. How do you do that? Better yet, why?

You make much to-do over longevity and popularity, for why, I won't begin to suppose. Yet you are surrounded by things with equal or much greater legacy, yet you shun them. That's not logic. You follow a story that supposedly explains the creation of all existence, yet uses simplistic, human-centric terms without even understanding the basic sciences we teach in 4th grade today. That's not logic. There are or have been hundreds of religions spanning thousands of gods, and each and every one falls to nothing more than simple fact, yet you cling to yours as the one true way. That's not logic.

I could go on and on, from claims of wild happenings that would leave proof today and haven't, to wild claims of this omnipresent love that is invisible to anyone who looks around, but I am not a god and could not get it all down before I expire.

Atheism for me is not an answer to the meaning of life, not an answer to all (or even that many) of life's questions, nor is it something I lean on for support or encouragement. I have a mama for that. Atheism is merely an answer for one question - is there a god as I know it? And after perusing at least a hundred of the things, and especially after my participation here, that answer cannot be anything other than "no".

Is a god logical? Sure, if we use the base definition of god as the force or effect that was the origin of existence. Then sure, logic and all knowledge we have points directly to the fact that there must be a beginning. But your god, or any of the thousands that have been proposed? There is no higher level of arrogance to claim that it is so.

As an aside, this is at least the, i dunno, 30th time I've written something like this, and I erase it every time. But I'm in a lot of pain and need the distraction, so sorry if it's jumbled, off point, or rambling =p
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
May 2nd, 2017 at 12:44:25 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: rxwine
That I don't accept evidence someone SAYS he is the son of god makes me the reasonable one. Or stories told second hand.


This is all any US court asks. If you make a
statement, provide actual evidence it's
true. Not hearsay from a hundred people,
actual hard evidence. We find this completely
reasonable in a court, yet in religion it's
asking way too much.

If you watch any of the cop shows on TV,
you hear again and again the prosecutor
say there isn't enough evidence to go to
trial. To make a believable case, the jury
has to see actual real evidence, not
somebody's idea of logic that can easily
be refuted by other logic.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 2nd, 2017 at 1:10:02 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Face
Not even Nareed has come forth with some whackadoo quantum mechanics explanation, and though that topic makes me wonder if something cannot indeed come from nothing, I'm surely not going to argue the point either. So on this, it's safe to say that we all agree.


Haven't I?

Virtual particles have been detected in vacuum. Black holes evaporate due to Hawking radiation provided by virtual particles spawning forth from nothing. Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a whole book about the subject.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11337189-a-universe-from-nothing
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
May 2nd, 2017 at 1:15:11 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Face

Is a god logical? Sure, if we use the base definition of god as the force or effect that was the origin of existence. Then sure, logic and all knowledge we have points directly to the fact that there must be a beginning. But your god, or any of the thousands that have been proposed? There is no higher level of arrogance to claim that it is so.

As an aside, this is at least the, i dunno, 30th time I've written something like this, and I erase it every time. But I'm in a lot of pain and need the distraction, so sorry if it's jumbled, off point, or rambling =p


It doesn't feel right to cut your good post down to this one point but I think it is essential in understanding where I am coming from. This is basically the point I am making. I am not saying that my belief in Jesus Christ as my Savior is logical and easy to see. It has been a long journey for me of ups and downs, experiences and study that have led me to this conclusion. Yes, I believe I am right and Christianity is true. Maybe in the same way as you believe what you do about the 2nd amendment is right and true. I don't say that anyone who holds a different opinion on Christ is illogical or not reasonable. I believe they are wrong, but I don't see why that is more arrogant than saying someone is wrong who holds to a different interpretation of gun rights.

Atheism is a denial of God's existence. It is not saying that maybe there is a God, it is logical but not certain. It is not saying even that I don't care if there is a God or not. Atheism is the certain denial that there is a God. This is illogical and doesn't make sense and I believe it carries with it a burden of proof. From that one data point that you, I, and the scientific community know as true (namely that something can't come from nothing, there is a need for a non-contigent being or first cause, unmoved mover, and the impossibility of an actual infinite regress, plus the 2nd law of thermodynamics); God, or the force or effect that was the origin of the existence (commonly referred to as God) is a necessity. That is all I am saying over and over again for much more than the 30th time. Why some people can't see this is beyond me.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 2nd, 2017 at 1:18:45 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Nareed
Haven't I?

Virtual particles have been detected in vacuum. Black holes evaporate due to Hawking radiation provided by virtual particles spawning forth from nothing. Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a whole book about the subject.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11337189-a-universe-from-nothing


The nothingness that Krauss talks about is not nothingness at all.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 2nd, 2017 at 1:20:19 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
This is all any US court asks. If you make a
statement, provide actual evidence it's
true. Not hearsay from a hundred people,
actual hard evidence. We find this completely
reasonable in a court, yet in religion it's
asking way too much.


If you have a hundred eye witnesses I think you can go to court with that case. Add to it miracles, archeology, sociology, and historical facts and you have a very strong case.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (