Religion should prepare us for a mentality, not faith to God

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 166
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
There is a distinct difference between my argument and Zeno's paradox.
We are still dealing with a mathematical infinite. You seem to be siting a difference with no real distinction. 
It doesn't prevent us from being on a point on the timeline.
Why could this not be any point on the timeline? You are essentially arguing that time cannot pass at all on an infinite timeline. 
Something cannot come from nothing.
Black swan fallacy. 
Causing the universe is an action, so it does have to be an acting agent. Furthermore, it has to choose to cause the universe, or else the universe would never be caused. Thus, it must be thinking as well.
Causing an arc of electricity is an action so a lightning storm does have to be a thinking agent. Do you see the flaw in this argument?
I'm not sure whether you mean that it couldn't be recognized as a God or that it couldn't be recognized as the God
Let me clarify. I mean any god(s) of any kind.
Agreed, but you didn't ask me to provide an argument for my preferred God. You asked me to provide evidence that a god(s) is real "to say nothing of your particular flavor of theism".
That is true but unless you are prepared to abandon any argument for christianity specifically then it is pertinent. Are you prepared to forego any such future argument?
That one's easy. Since the God I'm arguing for must necessarily have caused time as well, this God must be timeless, i.e. time doesn't apply to him. Thus, there are no problems with an infinite amount of time so far as God is concerned.
Perhaps once you have addressed my other points we can go down this particular rabbit hole of special pleading but until my points are addressed this is rather besides the point.
#92
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
So even those infidels that do live an moral upstanding life will not see heaven or god simply because they did not believe.  Very tolerant!
Moral and upstanding isn't the standard by which God judges us. Perfection is.

Then  by your own double standards we can never reach perfection because  we were born of sin according to you.


None of us can meet that standard.
Then why bother setting any standards that god knows we cannot reach. This is like the  command to Eve not to eat fruit when he knew exactly what  the out-come was going to be. Fkn pathetic!


That is why Jesus took our punishment on the cross.

Oh stop it!  Jesus went to the cross because - among other things -  he got up the noses of the  false puppet priests and a puppet king,  both put into their lucrative positions  by the authority of Rome. He was upsetting the precarious  status quo of the time. He was making a claim on the throne that he believed was rightly his. THAT IS WHY HE WENT TO THE CROSS!


However, the gift of salvation can't help you if you reject it. If you don't like that standard, it won't do any good to argue about it with me, because it's not my standard. It's God's.

 But were we not all saved by the so called blood sacrifice of god's only son who also happened to be god as well? Do you not see how ridiculousness you sound?


it won't do any good to argue about it with me, because it's not my standard. It's God's.

That is an absolute abysmal cope-out.  it is much more honest to simply say ' don't ask me' because  you do not know. 


What basis do you have for condemning God's justice (or anything else) beyond your own personal preference?

That's simple. "Gods justice " is unjust to anyone with the slightest of morals and who has read about  god's justice in practice..  The sad story of Job and the sanctioning BY GOD of the murder of  all job's children leaps to mind.  Job 1:  18 - 19 


Now one for you.

   Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?

#93
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SirAnonymous
There are no problems with an infinite amount of time (or space) anyway....No god required.

A GOD principle is only a necessary agent of material processes..

The god you are arguing for, is the god you are arguing for.....No more and no less.

We do not as yet understand the GOD principle, and despite our supposed sophistication, we are nonetheless still reliant upon archaic myths and legends.

D'oh.

Conversely though, we have been the agents of a technological phase of evolution. Though "we" doesn't necessarily refer to 99% of the population, but rather to just the very few evolved innovators. Perhaps eventually though, the necessities of material evolution will exceed human capabilities altogether.....Maybe, if we can keep up, we will be allowed along for the ride as service agents.

And I think that it is fair to suggest, that we are already becoming slaves to technology.

The GOD principle will out, though more than likely, not the archaic god that you are arguing for.
#94
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,236
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
My family, as I take it view Christianity as the best path to living a 'good life, to being closer to God.
But I don't think they see it as a requirement to entering Heaven.
They have faith in a kind, loving, understanding, God, who possesses knowledge beyond their ken
That will in some manner answer for all that has occurred bad in the world,
That in some manner even the lost or fallen of humanity will be brought back into the light.,
Not dammed to some eternity of fire, smoke, darkness, and suffering.
Afterlife being a vague and mysterious thing, what.
I think they have faith that good people, even without faith in God, will be brought into the fold,
Even people who deny Gods existence.

They also don't profess to judge people's fate after,
Let God sort them out so to speak, I think.
What does your family think of Revelations 21:8? John 3:18, Mark 16:16, etc?
#95
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Castin
Can't say I recall discussing Revelations 21:8, with any of my family members.
I recall by Dad mentioning once, that he didn't think Martin Luther had a very high opinion of Revelations.
Can't say I recall discussing John 3:18, with any of my family members.
And Can't say I recall discussing Mark 16:16, with any of my family members.

Eh, probably too much of a knee jerk reaction when I speak of 'all my family being such well loving, understanding Christians.
I imagine one of the reasons 'I'm an atheist is my family didn't focus on religion enough.
I recall our mother would encourage us to say our prayers each night early on, when we were together at a family meal we'd say grace, went to church a 'few times but not often.
Had kid Bible's early on, that they read with us.
Later on though, both the parents were busy working most of the time, and the religious conditioning fell off a fair bit. (Though I don't mean religious conditioning in a negative fashion)
Church ceased all together,
Mother was working usually, so the night time prayer fell off in time, for me anyway, but hey maybe third child is forgotten child. Rest of my siblings seem religious enough.

Religion really isn't something I discuss with them 'much, though I do at times,
Never told them I'm an atheist, feels awkward at times,
And again, I likely praise my family more than they deserve,
But it's the sentiment I get from them and their words, actions.
'Mostly/at times.

I'll let you know what they think about those references later, after I ask them.
#96
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
My three siblings and I, all have Biblical names.
#97
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
already have
#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You have not. You have only made the bald assertion that it is so. Now unless you have anything to add I am prepared to dismiss your bald assertion. 
#99
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
#100
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin

Ok now what?
#101
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
rational wiki does that to every theist or conservative website but doesnt work
#102
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Rule number one of the internet. You can find opposite opinions on every conceivable subject
#103
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
yes and rational wiki is a lazy attempt to say they are rational and eveyone else isnt
#104
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you don't accept my source and I don't accept yours. The only rational thing to do is to simply dismiss both for the purposes of this discussion. 
#105
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
whats wrong with the heritage foundation?
#106
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The same thing that is wrong with rational wiki. They have a vested interest which may skew their information. I will agree not to use sources that are specifically antitheistic if you agree not to use sources that are specifically theistic.
#107
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,236
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
Can't say I recall discussing Revelations 21:8, with any of my family members.
I recall by Dad mentioning once, that he didn't think Martin Luther had a very high opinion of Revelations.
Can't say I recall discussing John 3:18, with any of my family members.
And Can't say I recall discussing Mark 16:16, with any of my family members.

Eh, probably too much of a knee jerk reaction when I speak of 'all my family being such well loving, understanding Christians.
I imagine one of the reasons 'I'm an atheist is my family didn't focus on religion enough.
I recall our mother would encourage us to say our prayers each night early on, when we were together at a family meal we'd say grace, went to church a 'few times but not often.
Had kid Bible's early on, that they read with us.
Later on though, both the parents were busy working most of the time, and the religious conditioning fell off a fair bit. (Though I don't mean religious conditioning in a negative fashion)
Church ceased all together,
Mother was working usually, so the night time prayer fell off in time, for me anyway, but hey maybe third child is forgotten child. Rest of my siblings seem religious enough.

Religion really isn't something I discuss with them 'much, though I do at times,
Never told them I'm an atheist, feels awkward at times,
And again, I likely praise my family more than they deserve,
But it's the sentiment I get from them and their words, actions.
'Mostly/at times.

I'll let you know what they think about those references later, after I ask them.
That's cool - Christians don't have to find everything in the Bible personally resonant, or binding. I was just curious. You don't have to ask them on my account, of course, if it feels awkward to discuss religion with them. 
#108
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Castin
Eh, I'll likely ask them at some point for my own curiosity.
I do discuss religion with them at 'times, but it's usually for the practicality of a concept.
Such as Proverbs 28:1 – “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”
Though of course not 'all wicked people are bothered by their deeds, and not all righteous are bold.
As a rule of thumb and practical thought it makes sense to me though.

Or the 'slight similarity of,
Jesus's Parable of the Sower
and
Mencius 's Ox Mountain.
#109
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
i guess
#110
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Excellent. Then proceed with your demonstration.
#111
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,667
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
“[We] have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” — John Adams
#112
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree that we have no government capable of contending with human passions. The second half of the quote is completely unnecessary. After all religion and morality don't have such a great track record for contending with human passions either. You could as easily say that human passions would seem to be beyond the ability of humans to contend with. They are simply uncontrollable. 
#113
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous

What basis do you have for condemning God's justice (or anything else) beyond your own personal preference?

That's simple. "Gods justice " is unjust to anyone with the slightest of morals and who has read about  god's justice in practice..  The sad story of Job and the sanctioning BY GOD of the murder of  all job's children leaps to mind.  Job 1:  18 - 19 


Now one for you.

   Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?


#114
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I became really busy in real life in the last few days and didn't have time for both forum arguments and a mafia game.
That's simple. "Gods justice " is unjust to anyone with the slightest of morals and who has read about  god's justice in practice
That is still subjective. You've merely increased the number of subjective opinions. Do you have any objective basis for disagreeing with God's justice?
Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?
No. I don't have the authority to carry out God's justice. If I were to go to death row and kill some of the inmates, I would be arrested for murder. Even though the legal system has declared them guilty and said they deserve death, I don't have the authority to carry it out. The same is true of me and God's justice.
#115
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
We are still dealing with a mathematical infinite. You seem to be siting a difference with no real distinction. 
There is a real difference. As I pointed out earlier, Zeno divided a finite number in an infinite number of ways. My argument is dealing with a number that is actually infinite. If you were immortal and you sat down to wait for a finite amount of time to pass, it would eventually pass, no matter how long it took. But if you sat down to wait for an infinite amount of time to pass, you would never be finished waiting. The amount of time that had passed would always be finite. That's the difference.
Why could this not be any point on the timeline? You are essentially arguing that time cannot pass at all on an infinite timeline. 
That's not my argument. If the universe had existed forever, then it would have existed for an infinite number of years in the past. In order to reach the present, time would be counting down. Infinity. Infinity minus 1. Infinity minus 2. In order to reach the present, it would have to reach Infinity minus Infinity, which brings us back to waiting for an infinite amount of time to pass. Time would be passing, but it would never arrive at the present.
Black swan fallacy.
That would imply that I'm arguing something can't come from nothing simply because that's never happened before. I'm arguing that something can't come from nothing because it's logically absurd. Nothing has no causal power. If you want to claim that something can come from nothing, the burden of proof is on you.
Causing an arc of electricity is an action so a lightning storm does have to be a thinking agent. Do you see the flaw in this argument?
I'll have to think about that.
That is true but unless you are prepared to abandon any argument for christianity specifically then it is pertinent. Are you prepared to forego any such future argument?
Yes, but for the sole reason that I am unlikely to have the time to write such an argument in the near future.
Perhaps once you have addressed my other points we can go down this particular rabbit hole of special pleading but until my points are addressed this is rather besides the point.
A timeless entity does not have problems with infinite amounts of time, and I provided evidence that God is timeless. That isn't special pleading.
#116
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
If you were immortal and you sat down to wait for a finite amount of time to pass, it would eventually pass, no matter how long it took.
If you choose any point on an infinite timeline, say for example the big bang, and waited for another point, say the heat death of the universe, then you would have a finite set within an infinite set. You seem to be arguing that infinite time, which I am not actually arguing must or even could be the case, would prevent time from passing completely. Time would still pass in an infinite timeline there just would always be more to go. It would not prevent events from taking place.
That would imply that I'm arguing something can't come from nothing simply because that's never happened before. I'm arguing that something can't come from nothing because it's logically absurd. Nothing has no causal power. If you want to claim that something can come from nothing, the burden of proof is on you.
I am not claiming something can come from nothing I am saying that it is a black swan fallacy to say that everything must have a cause. Please try to keep up. In fact I don't even know what you mean when you say nothing. You don't seem to be using the word in the way cosmologists use it for example, which is a vacuum which is actually something. Can you define the characteristics of this proposed nothing?
A timeless entity does not have problems with infinite amounts of time, and I provided evidence that God is timeless. That isn't special pleading.
If it is not special pleading then why could we not propose literally any cause and simply say it was "outside of time". Like say a singularity which would then expand into time and space as a result of purely naturalistic forces unguided by any mind. Also in order for something to exist as we understand it it must have space to exist in and time to exist during. Those would seem to be prerequisites for existence. Can you demonstrate anything that exists outside of time and space or only hypothesize about some god(s) who by default are the only thing(s) that could (the very definition of special pleading)?




#117
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
If you choose any point on an infinite timeline, say for example the big bang, and waited for another point, say the heat death of the universe, then you would have a finite set within an infinite set. You seem to be arguing that infinite time, which I am not actually arguing must or even could be the case, would prevent time from passing completely.
No, I'm not saying that time wouldn't be passing.
Time would still pass in an infinite timeline there just would always be more to go.
This. This is exactly what I'm saying. If you pick some point that's an infinite amount of time in the future, then it would always be in the be in the part of "always more to go." Forever never comes. If time had always existed, then an infinite amount of time before the present. The present (our present, that is) would be the forever that never comes. Time would still pass in an infinite timeline, but there would always be more to go, and the present would always be in the future of "more to go."
It would not prevent events from taking place.
Will anything happen in the year AD Infinity? I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Time will never reach that point. No matter how large a finite number is, you can just keep adding to it. There is never a point when adding 1 to a finite number will make it infinity. Thus, time will always be finite, no matter how long it goes on. AD Infinity will never arrive. If time had always existed, we would be in the year Infinity that never arrives.
I am not claiming something can come from nothing I am saying that it is a black swan fallacy to say that everything must have a cause. Please try to keep up.
If time and the universe didn't have a cause, then that would be something from nothing, which is a positive claim that you need to support if you're going to claim it.
If it is not special pleading then why could we not propose literally any cause and simply say it was "outside of time". Like say a singularity which would then expand into time and space as a result of purely naturalistic forces unguided by any mind.
We would have to have evidence that it actually is outside of time. Simply saying "It must be outside of time because my argument falls apart if it isn't" would absolutely be special pleading, but that isn't what I'm saying.
Also in order for something to exist as we understand it it must have space to exist in and time to exist during. Those would seem to be prerequisites for existence.
"Seem to be" based on what? You're simply slipping your conclusion into your premise here.
Can you demonstrate anything that exists outside of time and space or only hypothesize about some god(s) who by default are the only thing(s) that could (the very definition of special pleading)?
That is exactly what my argument about time is for. Since time cannot have existed forever, then it had a cause, unless you want to defend something coming from nothing. A cause for time cannot itself be bound by time. There are three possibilities here:
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
I've spent plenty of virtual ink showing why 1 is impossible, and 2 is something from nothing, which is logically absurd. This only leaves 3, which is neither impossible nor logically absurd.

#118
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
My brain skipped over this for whatever reason.
In fact I don't even know what you mean when you say nothing. You don't seem to be using the word in the way cosmologists use it for example, which is a vacuum which is actually something. Can you define the characteristics of this proposed nothing?
I could only characterize nothing in the context of this discussion by what it doesn't have. Nothing would be the complete absence of matter, space, time, energy, and everything else.
Topic's author
#119
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
If the religion helps you getting more moral, it is a religion, a moral one.

If the religion helps you to only trust one arbitrary being, it is a cult.
#120
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
Would you kill my children because I don't have the faith that you have?
I didn't pay as much attention to your wording as I should have when I answered this above. No, you not having the same faith I have isn't a valid reason for me to kill anyone.