Yes, yes, yes. Now I notice that you’re trying to get me tossed off these boards because I’m an unbeliever:rolleyes:.
And for pity’s sake, don’t be such a hypocrite and liar. You “have not bothered to challenge my beliefs”? You’ve done that in every single post here that quoted something I said!
This is why religion disgusts me. It’s lies promoted by liars.
If you will note the sticky threads at the top of the forum, you will note that accusations of lying are prohibited.
Knock it off.
I am doing nothing to get you thrown off the board. Any warnings you have received have been for clear violations of the rules.
If everything that you have posted has been an expression of your personal beliefs, then those beliefs are too broad and too shallow to be recognized as such. I have challenged your erroneous statements. I am not sure what you actually believe (aside from your hatred of religion), and really do not care. There are already dozens of posters, here, who have expressed disdain for religion or any belief in the divine (far more eloquently than you have) who do not get Warned for poor behavior. Agreement with me on any topic (other than the rules) is not a prerequisite for posting. Adherence to the rules is.
So, Sicks Ate, what did you study this morning?
Well, there was this:
That’s factually incorrect.
And this:
That’s factually incorrect too.
It’s in no way self-evident, as you yourself seem to understand, as you go on to support your claim with, well, support, later in this post.
So, if a poster wrote that Lincoln was considered by many to be one of the greatest American presidents for freeing the slaves and leading the NBA in rebounding, would it be weaseling to point out that the latter wasn’t true?
There’s also the possibility of reasonably applying logic to premises which are simply mistaken. For instance, the belief that life is too complex to have arisen on its own, therefore it must have been designed.
It’s only for you, from your point of view, not anyone else’s. You’re still escaping.
For you, when you die, the universe ends.
By methods you consider as valid as placating leperchauns or getting money from the tooth fairy. i won’t bother you with such nonsense, it’s Sunday, there are sciencey stuff you must do.
But, if the question is “can you, after you die, present evidence of there being a universe?”, not answering the question because you don’t like is not an answer. The question only pertains the personal experience of that one person.
If I ask “do you love your mom?” the answer cannot be “others love their moms, therefore I love mine”.
But, that is the question.
For you, only you, no one but you, your death is absolutely identical to the end of the universe, because you can no longer gather evidence.
And the null hypothesis would be that the universe ends because…why? It doesn’t change when shifting from all humans to an individual human. It remains “that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.” You are proposing just such a relationship.
Gee, ask an honest question, get a snarky answer. Delightful.
Well, if your beliefs are too narrow and too unfathomably deep (which I guess would be the opposite of the way you pejoratively describe what you call my “beliefs”) to understand the simple things I’m saying, then your beliefs shouldn’t be recognized as such, either. But you are obviously one of those people who elevates his worldview to the status of Exalted Truth. The matter is, I see and hear people like you all the time. You’re not even original.
And ooh, I am crushed, truly I am, by your accusations of ineloquence on my part. (Though I realize that accusation for what it is.)
Q: That’s factually incorrect. (6000 year-old universe)
OK, I’ll amend the claim to only include the world’s three major monotheistic religions, since they all acknowledge the absolute truth of the Old Testament. Doesn’t really alter my basic contention, in that no other religion on earth considers the earth to be even close to its actual age, ignoring scientific evidence.
Q: And this: (universal denial of death among the world’s religions):
As a “refutation,” all anyone could come up with was the example of an obscure second-century Jewish sect that supposedly did not believe in an afterlife. But I exploded that one, too.
Q: It’s in no way self-evident, as you yourself seem to understand, as you go on to support your claim with, well, support, later in this post.
Even the self-evident needs examples for the non-self-aware. I admit that my examples may not have been sufficient to convince such people, but then, what would have been? In any case, the self-evident needs no support, so how well or badly I tendered such support has no effect on its truth either way.
Q: So, if a poster wrote that Lincoln was considered by many to be one of the greatest American presidents for freeing the slaves and leading the NBA in rebounding, would it be weaseling to point out that the latter wasn’t true?
ABSOLUTELY, if he was trying to thereby refute the basic premise, that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents (I can’t believe that you don’t fathom the distinction here, so to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume you’re deliberately ignoring it for argumentative reasons.).
Q: There’s also the possibility of reasonably applying logic to premises which are simply mistaken. For instance, the belief that life is too complex to have arisen on its own, therefore it must have been designed.
Don’t you understand that intelligent design, Thomas Aquinas’s “Proofs For the Existence of God,” and all other such twistings of logic, are not artifact of reasoned thinking at all but rather, an attempt to rationalize a belief system? You truly consider that “reasonably applying logic,” when the facts are altered to fit the desired conclusion?
Nope. I am not so self-centered as to think everything stops when I do. ALL previous evidence concerning human beings dying points in only one direction, and I have absolutely no evidence indicating that I am not human. You seem not to have a firm grasp on the definition of “universe” seeing as how you keep misusing the word.
I do agree with you, however, that “sciencey stuff” should be left to others, since you seem to have no comprehension as to how or why it works.
More utter nonsense. You claimed that I was attacking your beliefs. I have not attacked any beliefs you may hold. I have ignored your deep seated need to attack religion in order to address your errors of fact and logic. If your “beliefs” amount only to your tendency toward factual error, then your beliefs would appear to be pretty shallow.
I have not presented a world view, addressing only your errors of fact. That being the case, you claims regarding my world view are nothing but whiny attempts at tu quoque.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is the Earth said to be 6,000 years old.
The Catholic Church does, for one.
There’s always deists, many of whom believe in a creator God but not an immortal soul or afterlife.
“Religion and reason are incompatible” is not self-evident, though, in the manner of “water is wet” (wherein water is wet by definition). If it’s to be proved, it’s through argument.
I can’t speak for him, but to my reading (and as he wrote), tomndebb was not trying to refute your basic premise. He was correcting errors, and criticizing your style of argument.
That’s both an incredibly broad brush, and not a refutation that belief in a creator god can be arrived at through reason, in the event of premises that are mistaken. For example:
Laplanders are, by nature, thieves
Thieves can’t be trusted around money
Therefore, Laplanders can’t be trusted around money
…is perfectly logical. It’s also erroneous, not because it’s unreasonable or illogical, but because one of the premises is untrue.
If you’re arguing that, in no case in history, has anyone believed that life was created by a god because they believed that was the only way it could have happened, rather than because they had to rationalize their general religious belief…well, that’s simply wrong.
So, you are just hunkering down and repeating your errors of fact.
The vast majority of Jewish and Christian believers and some unpolled number of Muslims recognize that the stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are myth, (in the anthropological sense), and hold no view of a 6,000 year old Earth. Heck, even among a number of Creationists, there is recognition that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. (They are not called “Old Earth Creationists” for nothing.
) For you to repeat that silly claim that is clearly in error, establishes that you are uninterested in facts or truth.
Saying (figuratively) “nah, nah, I don’t believe you” is hardly “exploding” anything but your own credibility.
Final time, so pay attention.
From your own perspective, your very own and nobody else’s, how is your death different from the universe ending? You’re either incapable of understanding the question or running away from it because it scares you.
No snark whatsoever.
If I’d said “by spiritual means” you would, logically, ask to describe and show these spiritual means by ways the scientific method/logic/reason could explore them.
Since “spiritual means” is either 100% bullshit or, by definition, inaccessible to the scientific method, I fail to see the point.
Final time, so pay attention.
From your own perspective, your very own and nobody else’s, how is your death different from the universe ending? You’re either incapable of understanding the question or running away from it because it scares you.
Good one, good one. You think you can lecture me on science.
I’ll tip the waiter.
Rather odd of you to say “final time”, here, when this version is decidedly different from the one I first replied to:
Perhaps you’ve struggled to phrase this just the way you wanted. I’d hate to think you were shifting goalposts on me.
I’ve answered the original version at length: so here’s another recitation: such proof can’t be proffered, as nothing can be proffered by a dead person. In the absence of said proof, the null hypothesis would be that the universe persists…which, happily, is also the position with evidence behind it, though that’s just a bonus.
For this new version: my death is different from the universe ending because in the former case, I have matters pertaining to the living I wish to see to (such as the financial security of my fiance, being well-thought of by my friends and family, forgiven by my enemies, the disposition of my property, and so on), in the latter case, I do not.
Actually, I’d have asked whether there were spiritual senses, and if not, how spiritual information was received by humans, if not through a sense of some kind.
And who the hell are you to tell me what my perspective is on anything? I told you what my perspective is-either accept that I am telling you the truth, or go to The BBQ Pit and call me a liar.
Who would have thought a little constructive criticism of religion would turn so nasty. lol.
To get back to the OP, as I think has been mentioned: attending church has a social aspect unlikely to be replaced by studying up on Science. Even if you have some group study, science talk isn’t generally going to have the focus on personal interactions that a religious study would.
It doesn’t seem to have been brought up but I think it’s on topic. A pastor started up a little “Live like an atheist for a year” experiment which I think might be interesting to some people reading here.
I’ve been reading that series, and I’m afraid I have to agree with the commenter that said
Atheists don’t spend every waking minute of their lives wondering if religion would be the better way to go.
Yep, I’m sick of yard-work!
@Czarcasm: Well, he is a pastor and former professor at a Seminary who is only a month into his “atheism”. I would think a lot of former-Christian atheists hold onto a Christian “framework” to some degree. While it’s fair to say he’s not really an atheist, he’s trying to grasp it’s meaning in a more earnest way than most religious people would.
He’s posted over a dozen times on living without God, and has yet to begin to do so.