Godless said:
Rationalism prevails where Atheism fails.
Is Athiesm The Answer?
- Thread starter Yazdajerd
- Start date
Rationalism prevails where Atheism fails.
There is no atheism without reason or logic.
Rationalism is a cover up, a process of providing one's emotions with a false identity, of giving them spurious explanations and justifications-in order to hide one's motives, not just from others, but primarily from oneself. The price of rationalizing is the hampering, the distortion and, and ultimately, the destruction of one's cognitive faculty. Rationalization is a process not of perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions. *A.R.
Godless.
PS. I'll get back to ya latters. when I have the time. Reality calls I got to work.
RawThinkTank: If you are so superior, why do you have the spelling and grammar of a grade schooler? You call yourself a different species, but your parents were human were they not? You can procreate with other humans can you not? 
Really? Where does atheism fail?
Continuing guoting Ayn Rand on "rationalization"
Philosophical catch phrases are handy means of rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain. "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me" is a rationalization for one's inability and unwillingness to prove the validity of one's contentions. "Nobody is perfect in this world" is a rationalization for the desire to continue indulging in one's imperfections, i.e., the desire to escape morality. "Nobody can help anything he does" is a rationalization for the escape of moral responsibility. "It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today" is a rationalization for the desire to get away with contradictions. "Logic has nothing to do with reality" is a crude rationalization for a desire to subordinate reality to one's whims.
"I can't prove it, but I *FEEL* that it's true" is more than a rationalization: it is a description of the process of rationalizing. Men do not accept a catch phrase by a process of thought, they seize upon a catch phrase--
any catch phrase--because it fits their emotions. Such men do not judge the truth of a statement by its correspondence to reality--they judge reality by its correspondence to their feelings.
If, in the course of philosophical detention, you find yourself, at times, stopped by the indignantly bewildered question: "How could anyone arrive at such nonsense?"--you will begin to understand it when you discover that evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations. Ayn Rand.
Thus to rationalize, is to look upon the heavens and actually admit, as they church did, before Copernicus that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all planets revolve around it, this was a rationalization of the church for many centuries, untill Copernicus death, when his findings of the Geoscentric, and Helioscentric theories were published, and even then Galileo was thrown from the favor of the church for agreeing with Copernicus findings, thus this was considered to be blaspheme.
Godless.
Philosophical catch phrases are handy means of rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain. "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me" is a rationalization for one's inability and unwillingness to prove the validity of one's contentions. "Nobody is perfect in this world" is a rationalization for the desire to continue indulging in one's imperfections, i.e., the desire to escape morality. "Nobody can help anything he does" is a rationalization for the escape of moral responsibility. "It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today" is a rationalization for the desire to get away with contradictions. "Logic has nothing to do with reality" is a crude rationalization for a desire to subordinate reality to one's whims.
"I can't prove it, but I *FEEL* that it's true" is more than a rationalization: it is a description of the process of rationalizing. Men do not accept a catch phrase by a process of thought, they seize upon a catch phrase--
any catch phrase--because it fits their emotions. Such men do not judge the truth of a statement by its correspondence to reality--they judge reality by its correspondence to their feelings.
If, in the course of philosophical detention, you find yourself, at times, stopped by the indignantly bewildered question: "How could anyone arrive at such nonsense?"--you will begin to understand it when you discover that evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations. Ayn Rand.
Thus to rationalize, is to look upon the heavens and actually admit, as they church did, before Copernicus that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all planets revolve around it, this was a rationalization of the church for many centuries, untill Copernicus death, when his findings of the Geoscentric, and Helioscentric theories were published, and even then Galileo was thrown from the favor of the church for agreeing with Copernicus findings, thus this was considered to be blaspheme.
Godless.
Last edited:
Do you really think you can make comparison between your bedroom and the universe? While you can state that your bedroom is 'organised' because you cleaned it up, you cannot assign the same variable to the entire cosmos. It seems you're thinking with a very narrow 2d vision.
Sorry Snakelord, I don't see why can't I make that comparison? And "cleaning my bedroom"... Whats that? you know what someone means your bedroom is organised... or haven't you done your chores lately??
...Oh, it seems you have other theories why I founf my room organised, do you??
It's like people who say the earth is in just the right place, while forgetting about poor old venus, mars, jupiter, neptune, saturn, pluto, mercury, uranus and the billions upon billions upon billions of other planets that weren't so lucky. How can it be construed as anything other than luck when faced with every other planet we know of being extremely chaotic and lifeless? Jupiter is a humungous mass of gas and fire that has absolutely no place in a system that has been "organised". Would you claim all these other planets are there just to ensure astronomers have a job?
Whats wrong with "earth is in the right place"??? imagine your earth a little closer to the sun or a little farther, where would you be??
Who foregot about the other planets. It seems your prejudiced against them, Jupiter, for your information is in the right place, if it weren't there you'd have asteroids as big as your house falling instead of rain...!!
Excuse me, since when does "lifeless" mean "chaotic"??? or does physics laws to you just rubbish??
Sorry pal, I firmly think the cosmos is organised, I'm sorry you don't!!
It's like asking why dolphins and whales, that spend their entire lives in the sea, have to leave the water just to be able to breathe
God creates every possible thing that might occur in the mind so noone would claim (( He can't do this )), so as he created dolphins he also created fish and also created air breathers.....etc.
Ok, so here is the just as valid return statement: When a ship is travelling amongst hurricanes and high waves and ends up being ripped to pieces, killing everyone on board in the most disgustingly gory manner possible, the ship is obviously not sailing by itself - somebody is guiding it.
I didn't claim that every ship making the journey will survive, It is only normal that doing such a trip will end you in disaster, but when one ship survives it, clearly it wasn't going alone, it didn't know its route all by itself!!
or will you now tell me when they crash it's the work of the devil?
The Devil has no such power, he is a weak being that can only manipulate you to do what is wrong... And I tell you even when it does crash, the accident happened by the will of God.
All you're really doing is trying to assign human-like characteristics to the words 'fortunate' and 'unfortunate'. People do it all the time.
Surprise, I never do that, not in the article, nor my entire life!!
Personally, during times of my existence being threatened, I really haven't found the time to consider how it's going to end up. However, do not consider your brain as being completely stupid. You must have heard how people during the act of being smacked into by a bus etc state their "life flashed before their eyes".
I didn't say that your life flashed infront of your eyes, I said that during the experience you firmly beleived your going to survive and you did, that which told you will survive is God.
Aside from that, you must take into account and understand personal attitude. When faced with probable death, some folk take the optimistic approach, some take the sombre quiet approach and some cry their eyes out with disbelief. It does not mean there's any outside space being having any part in the process, but simply your own thought and feelings. With respect to your last question, this one doesn't even come close. It's a 50/50.. you live or you die. Thinking you're going to live doesn't make it true, and I'm sure if we looked at many corpses, we'd see many of them thought they were going to make it out alive.
Excuse, you know someone who is calm about death??... unless he is a firm beleiver in life after death, he will think ((this is the moment I will cease to exist , I really don't like that)) and he'll be nervous all over... It's not like your sitting next to the TV with aircondition on and thinking of it, you are firmly thinking (( I'm going to die )) and suddenly, you became calm beleiving you will survive.............. Reply after going through the experience!!
The most pertinent answer here is that chairs are not the universe. To really understand it better and indepth, you'd need to study the subject. Without doing so, you'll never be able to make a statement worthy of consideration. Instead people will see and understand that you haven't grasped the very basics.
What subject?? and what basics??..... did that chair come to existance or didn't it??
And I still can't see why the chair isn't the universe??
Really, we're not all that special. We're just a mass of molecules, proteins and various chemicals wrapped up in a flimsy bag. We are frail, fragile, full of errors, and problems that vary and so on. While I don't want to completely dampen your view of humanity, you must look at it and appreciate it from all angles. Once you do that, you'll see it's not quite as gloriously colourful as you currently assume.
I'm surprised, you should study biochemistry, and lets see what your proffessors would say about your theory..... "just a mass of molecules, proteins and various chemicals wrapped up in a flimsy bag".... please, get real!!
Hope this has helped in some way.
No, it didn't, but thanks for trying........
Sorry Snakelord, I don't see why can't I make that comparison? And "cleaning my bedroom"... Whats that? you know what someone means your bedroom is organised... or haven't you done your chores lately??
...Oh, it seems you have other theories why I founf my room organised, do you??
It's like people who say the earth is in just the right place, while forgetting about poor old venus, mars, jupiter, neptune, saturn, pluto, mercury, uranus and the billions upon billions upon billions of other planets that weren't so lucky. How can it be construed as anything other than luck when faced with every other planet we know of being extremely chaotic and lifeless? Jupiter is a humungous mass of gas and fire that has absolutely no place in a system that has been "organised". Would you claim all these other planets are there just to ensure astronomers have a job?
Whats wrong with "earth is in the right place"??? imagine your earth a little closer to the sun or a little farther, where would you be??
Who foregot about the other planets. It seems your prejudiced against them, Jupiter, for your information is in the right place, if it weren't there you'd have asteroids as big as your house falling instead of rain...!!
Excuse me, since when does "lifeless" mean "chaotic"??? or does physics laws to you just rubbish??
Sorry pal, I firmly think the cosmos is organised, I'm sorry you don't!!
It's like asking why dolphins and whales, that spend their entire lives in the sea, have to leave the water just to be able to breathe
God creates every possible thing that might occur in the mind so noone would claim (( He can't do this )), so as he created dolphins he also created fish and also created air breathers.....etc.
Ok, so here is the just as valid return statement: When a ship is travelling amongst hurricanes and high waves and ends up being ripped to pieces, killing everyone on board in the most disgustingly gory manner possible, the ship is obviously not sailing by itself - somebody is guiding it.
I didn't claim that every ship making the journey will survive, It is only normal that doing such a trip will end you in disaster, but when one ship survives it, clearly it wasn't going alone, it didn't know its route all by itself!!
or will you now tell me when they crash it's the work of the devil?
The Devil has no such power, he is a weak being that can only manipulate you to do what is wrong... And I tell you even when it does crash, the accident happened by the will of God.
All you're really doing is trying to assign human-like characteristics to the words 'fortunate' and 'unfortunate'. People do it all the time.
Surprise, I never do that, not in the article, nor my entire life!!
Personally, during times of my existence being threatened, I really haven't found the time to consider how it's going to end up. However, do not consider your brain as being completely stupid. You must have heard how people during the act of being smacked into by a bus etc state their "life flashed before their eyes".
I didn't say that your life flashed infront of your eyes, I said that during the experience you firmly beleived your going to survive and you did, that which told you will survive is God.
Aside from that, you must take into account and understand personal attitude. When faced with probable death, some folk take the optimistic approach, some take the sombre quiet approach and some cry their eyes out with disbelief. It does not mean there's any outside space being having any part in the process, but simply your own thought and feelings. With respect to your last question, this one doesn't even come close. It's a 50/50.. you live or you die. Thinking you're going to live doesn't make it true, and I'm sure if we looked at many corpses, we'd see many of them thought they were going to make it out alive.
Excuse, you know someone who is calm about death??... unless he is a firm beleiver in life after death, he will think ((this is the moment I will cease to exist , I really don't like that)) and he'll be nervous all over... It's not like your sitting next to the TV with aircondition on and thinking of it, you are firmly thinking (( I'm going to die )) and suddenly, you became calm beleiving you will survive.............. Reply after going through the experience!!
The most pertinent answer here is that chairs are not the universe. To really understand it better and indepth, you'd need to study the subject. Without doing so, you'll never be able to make a statement worthy of consideration. Instead people will see and understand that you haven't grasped the very basics.
What subject?? and what basics??..... did that chair come to existance or didn't it??
And I still can't see why the chair isn't the universe??
Really, we're not all that special. We're just a mass of molecules, proteins and various chemicals wrapped up in a flimsy bag. We are frail, fragile, full of errors, and problems that vary and so on. While I don't want to completely dampen your view of humanity, you must look at it and appreciate it from all angles. Once you do that, you'll see it's not quite as gloriously colourful as you currently assume.
I'm surprised, you should study biochemistry, and lets see what your proffessors would say about your theory..... "just a mass of molecules, proteins and various chemicals wrapped up in a flimsy bag".... please, get real!!
Hope this has helped in some way.
No, it didn't, but thanks for trying........
I've never understood the use of earth's placement in our solar system as some kind of evidence of a creator. If earth wasn't as well placed as it is, life - as we know it - couldn't have evolved here in the first place. In otherwords, where else would life emerge but on a planet that can support it?
Now, if humanity was living comfortably on jupiter or venus, for example, THAT would make a good argument for the existence of a god.
Now, if humanity was living comfortably on jupiter or venus, for example, THAT would make a good argument for the existence of a god.
Übergänger
Registered Member
Hello I'm new here!
I've just finished reading every page on this thread, and I must sincerely congratulate Alpha and Katazia on their tireless efforts to let reason prevail. You two are the very definition of Patience, for I suspect I would have much sooner lost my patience to the thick skulls of some of these theists (namely jan ardena and southstar).
Reading some of the posts of these christians I was forced to conclude that either they are just trying to make fun of you or their fucked up brains truly "work" like that, which is scary.
Jan Ardena:
You've asked for proof of everything a million times during this discussion, you've even asked for proof on the most inane and elemental stuff that nobody would doubt.
Please tell me, if you are SO conscientious and icredibly meticulous about Proof, how then can you believe in Christianity?, that's INSANE, you are just a contradiction.
I've just finished reading every page on this thread, and I must sincerely congratulate Alpha and Katazia on their tireless efforts to let reason prevail. You two are the very definition of Patience, for I suspect I would have much sooner lost my patience to the thick skulls of some of these theists (namely jan ardena and southstar).
Reading some of the posts of these christians I was forced to conclude that either they are just trying to make fun of you or their fucked up brains truly "work" like that, which is scary.
Jan Ardena:
You've asked for proof of everything a million times during this discussion, you've even asked for proof on the most inane and elemental stuff that nobody would doubt.
Please tell me, if you are SO conscientious and icredibly meticulous about Proof, how then can you believe in Christianity?, that's INSANE, you are just a contradiction.
Last edited:
Yes, I must admit, they have done a brilliant job. I don't think that even I would have had the perserverance to bandy words for as long as they have.
I would have given up ages ago.
Thicks skull are like thick walls. They don't allow new ideas in, but old ideas keep rattling around inside.
LOL. Well spotted.
If Jan applied her 'critical thinking skills' to her own beliefs, she would no longer be Christian.
Sadly, double standards often prevail in the fundamentalist's world.
Well Übergänger welcome to sci, as for Jan and Southstar they are harmless, really. All their arguments are good for entertainment purpose, one thing though if they were not allowed to be here to give their opinions it would make this place quite boring, for it's people like them that makes it iteresting to debate the athiest ideas or objectivist ideas, amongs others who claim to be superior, with superiority complex such as self proclaimed rationalist RawThinkTank. They come here to be put on their place. really!!.
Godless.
Godless.
*Sorry pal, I firmly think the cosmos is organised, I'm sorry you don't!!
This only shows you don't know much about the cosmos, here is a little lesson for you so you can see the chaotic universe your so called god created for you: http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
* God creates every possible thing that might occur in the mind so noone would claim (( He can't do this )
Actually you need to learn physics here the creator you call god, cannot possibly produce an elephant out of a penut, god can't create a square circle, an only blue rainbow, or anything else that contradicts metaphisics, thus god is a contradiction to metaphisics if it were able to do anything of the above.
*The Devil has no such power, he is a weak being that can only manipulate you to do what is wrong..
The devil is a tool used to decieve you by fear. Hell is a tool to fool you with promises of a beter place after death. All these ideas fail in a correct metaphisics.
Godless.
This only shows you don't know much about the cosmos, here is a little lesson for you so you can see the chaotic universe your so called god created for you: http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
* God creates every possible thing that might occur in the mind so noone would claim (( He can't do this )
Actually you need to learn physics here the creator you call god, cannot possibly produce an elephant out of a penut, god can't create a square circle, an only blue rainbow, or anything else that contradicts metaphisics, thus god is a contradiction to metaphisics if it were able to do anything of the above.
*The Devil has no such power, he is a weak being that can only manipulate you to do what is wrong..
The devil is a tool used to decieve you by fear. Hell is a tool to fool you with promises of a beter place after death. All these ideas fail in a correct metaphisics.
Godless.
Yazdajerd, I suggest you read this, and these.
Lefties should be able to type just as well as righties (?). They layout of the keyboard is designed so that keys commonly used in sequence are apart from each other. This has no handedness bias.
I have a question for religious people. If religion is true, why do it's priests and other proponents persist in spreading myths about evolution? One common myth is that it's just a theory and has never been proven. Another is that man evolved from apes, which makes many laugh when they first hear it. Another is that "macroevolution" does not proceed from "microevolution". They've also suppressed most of the observations of speciation, or at least made it seem like lies to believers.
All that said, I have devised a proof God doesn't exist. I guess you needn't bother with the Qur'an contradictions, or other conflicts I was going to bring up if you were successful in refuting those, Jan Arden. If you cannot refute my proof, the rest becomes moot. Here then is my proof:
----
Definitions:
God - The creator of the Universe. (D1)
Time - Change(s) of state. (D2)
Universe - All of existence. (D3)
Causality - Law of cause and effect. (D4)
Assumptions:
1 - Time & causality exist. (A1)
2 - The Universe had an origin and was created. (A2)
3 - The Universe did not exist until it was created. (A3)
Conclusions:
1 - From D3 & A1: Time & causality are part of the Universe.
2 - From A3 & D2: The creation of the Universe is a change of state.
3 - From D2 & C2: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
4 - From A1 & C1: Time & Causality didn't exist when God created the Universe.
5 - From C3 & C4: God did not create the Universe.
Therefore D1 is false.
----
It's a little rough, but should be good enough for this.
Welcome.
Thanks.
I don't see the, uh, correlation. It's a keyboard, and last time I checked, the letters don't jump around.
Lefties should be able to type just as well as righties (?). They layout of the keyboard is designed so that keys commonly used in sequence are apart from each other. This has no handedness bias.I have a question for religious people. If religion is true, why do it's priests and other proponents persist in spreading myths about evolution? One common myth is that it's just a theory and has never been proven. Another is that man evolved from apes, which makes many laugh when they first hear it. Another is that "macroevolution" does not proceed from "microevolution". They've also suppressed most of the observations of speciation, or at least made it seem like lies to believers.
All that said, I have devised a proof God doesn't exist. I guess you needn't bother with the Qur'an contradictions, or other conflicts I was going to bring up if you were successful in refuting those, Jan Arden. If you cannot refute my proof, the rest becomes moot. Here then is my proof:
----
Definitions:
God - The creator of the Universe. (D1)
Time - Change(s) of state. (D2)
Universe - All of existence. (D3)
Causality - Law of cause and effect. (D4)
Assumptions:
1 - Time & causality exist. (A1)
2 - The Universe had an origin and was created. (A2)
3 - The Universe did not exist until it was created. (A3)
Conclusions:
1 - From D3 & A1: Time & causality are part of the Universe.
2 - From A3 & D2: The creation of the Universe is a change of state.
3 - From D2 & C2: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
4 - From A1 & C1: Time & Causality didn't exist when God created the Universe.
5 - From C3 & C4: God did not create the Universe.
Therefore D1 is false.
----
It's a little rough, but should be good enough for this.
Of course you wont - unless you study the subject in depth. This is generally the key problem. People look at something and say "wow that's cool", but without understanding the very basics of it, what makes them think they can attribute an answer to the complex aspects, or indeed try to compare it to something that has absolutely no relevance to it.
It seems you didn't understand this part of my post, and while I appreciate that English is probably not your native language, is it possible you can get someone to explain it to you in your own language?
How in the world do you draw that conclusion?
This is a rough diagram which will show you certain points relating to your statement. The big blue band is a belt of asteroids, (that are much closer to us than jupiter is), and as such jupiter would be of absolutely no help in protecting this planet. Further to which, you seem to be viewing the cosmos as if it's one driving lane on a highway. To get to us, an asteroid does not have to go through a planet first.. space is big and not confined to a solitary avenue.
It is quite clear you have very little understanding of space/the universe which is exactly why you're having problems and trying to compare it to your bedroom.
It seems again you have misunderstood what I was saying. Kindly read my post again or get someone to translate.
All due respect, but it's obvious you don't have any understanding of the cosmos, so what you 'think' about it has no value.
Although it is quite amusing, kindly don't waste my time with this nonsense.
Unfortunately it seems you have once again failed to understand what I said. But regardless to that, why would you say "clearly"? Why was that ship just not lucky?
I'll have to take your word for that, I haven't personally interviewed either of them.
Umm that's exactly what you're doing.
God told you? Tell me... what did he sound like? What did he say exactly?
I assume from your above text that you have gone through some experience of this nature. Tell me about it.. What happened? However, need I mention it one more time: Believing in something does not imply that there's an outside force making you believe, or making your beliefs come true.
We've already established why.
Oh. So why don't you tell me what a biochemistry professor would say.
Übergänger
Registered Member
Alpha said:Yazdajerd, I suggest you read this, and these.
Welcome.
Here then is my proof:
----
Definitions:
God - The creator of the Universe. (D1)
Time - Change(s) of state. (D2)
Universe - All of existence. (D3)
Causality - Law of cause and effect. (D4)
Assumptions:
1 - Time & causality exist. (A1)
2 - The Universe had an origin and was created. (A2)
3 - The Universe did not exist until it was created. (A3)
Conclusions:
1 - From D3 & A1: Time & causality are part of the Universe.
2 - From A3 & D2: The creation of the Universe is a change of state.
3 - From D2 & C2: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
4 - From A1 & C1: Time & Causality didn't exist when God created the Universe.
5 - From C3 & C4: God did not create the Universe.
Therefore D1 is false.
----
It's a little rough, but should be good enough for this.
The whole argument seems to me like an alternative way of saying "Something cannot come out of Nothing", if you had substituted the word "The Universe" for the word "God" in your argument, of course it would have led to the same conclusion, namely that "The Universe" could not have given birth to itself.
It could be sidetracked by any theist by just saying that God can exist independent of time, space or anything you know, in another level of reality innaccesible by humans or by their feeble minds, and so He simultaneously set forth time and space by creating the universe. He didn't require "an instant" to do this, as he is omnipotent and requires nothing but himself to do anything.
They could further tell you that God is not bound by the so-called Laws of Logic, that the only thing bound by those Laws is your human mind (and maybe, perhaps, The Universe), and that your attempt at applying those Laws as an Objective Truth has led you in your arrogance to conclude lies.
Religion is impervious to logical attacks because it is chock full of unverifiable (by logic or sense data) statements, and the mystical need not be in any way bound to reason.
Hence the debate between believers and scientific unbelievers is irreconcilable, because "scientists" like me and (I assume) you only accept Logic and sense data as paths to Proof.
They, on the other hand, accept The Scriptures and the subjective experience of the mystical some of them achieve (or think they do) as sufficient to hold fast to their beliefs, to have Faith.
Last edited:
Alpha,
I researched this many years ago when I was working with something who was quite brilliant and very much my mentor, but he couldn’t spell to save his life – and he was left-handed.
My real point is that even if someone cannot spell very well it does not mean that they do not have a bright mind. We should look deeper at what people are trying to say and not necessarily at how they say it.
Kat
LOL. OK so my statement was a little unfair. There is a strong correlation between left-handedness and dyslexia. The cause seems to be routed in early slighty abnormal fetal development when the right brain developed slightly faster than the left.
I researched this many years ago when I was working with something who was quite brilliant and very much my mentor, but he couldn’t spell to save his life – and he was left-handed.
My real point is that even if someone cannot spell very well it does not mean that they do not have a bright mind. We should look deeper at what people are trying to say and not necessarily at how they say it.
Kat
Alpha
No, the Qur'an claimed that heaven was being expanded. The heaven they refer to may be either space or the heaven of the afterlife, so it's not necessarily a scientific insight.
The actual word used to describe heaven is ‘sama’ which also translates as ‘space.’
Just ask any Islam scholar.
All I'm pointing out is that you can use both true or false premises and come to a true conclusion (though not a false conclusion from true premises).
Now why would he want to do that, especially with info like the expansion of the universe?
Well wouldn't divine inspiration be supernatural?
It could be, but not necessarily.
To say it is something atheists do is a generalization that does not apply, since the only generalization that applies to atheists is that they lack belief in God.
Well…..to say it is something atheists “don’t do” is also a generalisation that does not apply. I was entering the mood of the discussion.
Right, and there is no personal characteristic aside from their shared belief that applies to every atheist.
Never said there was.
It's more efficient that way, and the authors of the site are far more knowledgeable in the subject than I.
I know how they see it, I’m interested in how you see it. I want to see how you use the information, what it means to you.
It would occur because the process of evolution dictates it would occur, unless some unknown mechanism were discovered to prevent it.
What process of evolution? Please be more specific.
Genes mutate, which causes differences from generation to generation.
Fair point.
How does genetic variation give rise to new biological species with entirely different bodies over time?
…When these differences result in the new generation being unable to procreate with previous generations, it is a different species, and their genes will diverge over further generations..”.
How does he know, their genes will diverge into an entirely different species over further generations?
Evolution of species, and the genesis of new species due to evolution has been observed and is now known fact.
Bombarding fruit flies with radiation or different breeds of cats and dogs? Hardly natural?
If you cannot refute my proof, the rest becomes moot.
You need to question an Islamic scholar, or visit Islamic websites that cater for those large enquiries. That is if you’re genuinely interested.
Here then is my proof:
I wouldn’t know where to start on this one Alpha.
Do you understand how God ( supposedly) created this material world?
Jan Ardena.
No, the Qur'an claimed that heaven was being expanded. The heaven they refer to may be either space or the heaven of the afterlife, so it's not necessarily a scientific insight.
The actual word used to describe heaven is ‘sama’ which also translates as ‘space.’
Just ask any Islam scholar.
All I'm pointing out is that you can use both true or false premises and come to a true conclusion (though not a false conclusion from true premises).
Now why would he want to do that, especially with info like the expansion of the universe?
Well wouldn't divine inspiration be supernatural?
It could be, but not necessarily.
To say it is something atheists do is a generalization that does not apply, since the only generalization that applies to atheists is that they lack belief in God.
Well…..to say it is something atheists “don’t do” is also a generalisation that does not apply. I was entering the mood of the discussion.
Right, and there is no personal characteristic aside from their shared belief that applies to every atheist.
Never said there was.
It's more efficient that way, and the authors of the site are far more knowledgeable in the subject than I.
I know how they see it, I’m interested in how you see it. I want to see how you use the information, what it means to you.
It would occur because the process of evolution dictates it would occur, unless some unknown mechanism were discovered to prevent it.
What process of evolution? Please be more specific.
Genes mutate, which causes differences from generation to generation.
Fair point.
How does genetic variation give rise to new biological species with entirely different bodies over time?
…When these differences result in the new generation being unable to procreate with previous generations, it is a different species, and their genes will diverge over further generations..”.
How does he know, their genes will diverge into an entirely different species over further generations?
Evolution of species, and the genesis of new species due to evolution has been observed and is now known fact.
Bombarding fruit flies with radiation or different breeds of cats and dogs? Hardly natural?
If you cannot refute my proof, the rest becomes moot.
You need to question an Islamic scholar, or visit Islamic websites that cater for those large enquiries. That is if you’re genuinely interested.
Here then is my proof:
I wouldn’t know where to start on this one Alpha.
Do you understand how God ( supposedly) created this material world?
Jan Ardena.
your mentor eh? way to show respect.
Indeed, nothing wrong with that.
On the contrary, and I can prove otherwise. If God is "outside" time (whatever that means), then he cannot change, or cause change, thus rendering him completely impotent. He cannot be omnipotent either, as that's a logical impossiblity (it's proven to be an incoherent concept).
Pushing God to "another level of reality innaccesible by humans or by their feeble minds" is known as the "God of the gaps" and is simply a way of defining God in a negative way. That is, he's not this, he's not that, etc., etc. An argument specifically designed to be unfalsifiable (though I don't think it is). Any attempt to push God "outside time" makes discussion of God incoherent, and the terms become meaningless.
Everything is bound by logic. It's a fundamental truth. "[...]the only thing bound by those Laws is your human mind". Actually, the human mind is not bound by logic (unfortunately?), nor is it's comprehension. "[...]that your attempt at applying those Laws as an Objective Truth has led you in your arrogance to conclude lies." Arrogance? It may be arrogance only if it's wrong. Lies? I don't think you know what a lie is. If I've used logic & reason to come to a conclusion, and believe it (as I should if it's logical) and claim it's true to others, it is not a lie even if false. If it's false, it's a mistake or error, not a lie. A lie is an intentional deception.
Religion is not impervious to logical arguments, it is one's belief in it that may be impervious.
This is, the points can be proven and the truth found out, it's a matter of whether or not the opposing side will admit it. If the points are proven and the opponents don't concede, then their beliefs are irrational.
I showed someone my proof, who is Catholic. She agreed there was nothing wrong with the proof, but said she would not change her beliefs. Her reasoning was that she needed to believe that certain family members who had passed on were in a better place. This I can understand, and I respect her right to continue believing that if that's what she needs to go on. Nonetheless, it is not a rational belief.
Interesting. Point taken.
Just ask anyone who believes in the Qur'an you mean.
It has been translated as heaven, and the verse spefically refers to the "firmament" which seperates the world from the afterlife/heaven, thus I conclude the passage does not refer to the expansion of space.I see you don't understand what I said at all. Try reading it again. It's not really a matter of choice, it's an error. My point was regarding the method by which he got this supposed info.
That's right, and I'm not making that generalization. As I said, there's only one generalization that applies to all atheists.
I don't even know how to say what's wrong with that. It involves your mindset. You should debate the arguments, not the person. Use reason and logic, not emotions.
Yes you did. You claimed atheists force their beliefs on others. As we've discussed, this is a false generalization. Some do, some don't. I'd say most don't.
It's not a matter of how I see it. The way I see it is inadequate. Evolution is not really something you can debate, as it's known proven fact.
It's implications for me may be relevant, but given the arguments presented, I think it's rather moot if you can't adress the more fundamental arguments.
THE process of evolution. My very point was that it's a single process, not two seperate ones.
I believe I already stated this. Once a generation cannot procreate with previous members of it's species, it is no longer the same species and the genes will diverge with new generations causing the new species do differ more and more. Given enough time and, usually, environmental seperation, the new species will follow it's own evolutionary path and may evolve entirely differently and independant of the species it branched from.
How does who know? For one, the process of evolution demonstrates that's what would happen. For another, it has been observed to happen on many occasions. Every step in the process has been verified and observed.
What are you talking about? Is this another myth perpetuated about evolution? It's a new one to me.
Also, cats and dogs are a good example, regardless of the fact that we induced and influenced it. We simply influenced which members would breed with other members. As a result, we have seen evolution occur as a direct result of our actions.
Once again I get referred to a priest or other authority. I have debated priests before, and won, thank you. I have seen contrary arguments, and none are persuasive.
Explain it.
Last edited: