Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 09-13-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azmodan

Originally Posted by Ed
Yes, because there is scientific evidence for a Triune creator while there is no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary. BTW, God is not 1 person, he is 3 persons but one divinity.

az: could you provide supporting evidence for this? i've never heard that claimed before.

[edit] not the dead people part, the triune creator part lol. [/edit]

Well in science you study an effect to determine a cause. The universe is the effect and the main characteristic of the universe is that it is a diversity of entities within a unity, ie a single thing. And in fact the universe is filled with a multitude of diversities within unities. This means that the cause of the universe probably has that characteristic or something similar to it. And only the Christian God has that characteristic of being a diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity. Therefore it is the most likely cause of the universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed
Yeah, hopefully you didn't vote for her or her husband, they both are a little too far out there!

az: well, just goes to show ya no matter how diffrent people are they can generally find some kind of common ground.

Well we may even find some more if you continue our discussion!

Sturmrabe · 09-13-2004, 09:19 PM

AHAHAHA...

how DARE you call anything said in that steaming pile of a post "scientific" or "Evidence"

Azathoth · 09-13-2004, 10:46 PM

His heart?

So God's not an attractive woman?

That's the last time I get a bible story from any movie called; "The Sex Commandments."

Jack the Bodiless · 09-14-2004, 01:15 AM

Quote:

And only the Christian God has that characteristic of being a diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity.

Baloney.

lpetrich · 09-14-2004, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Well in science you study an effect to determine a cause. The universe is the effect and the main characteristic of the universe is that it is a diversity of entities within a unity, ie a single thing. And in fact the universe is filled with a multitude of diversities within unities. This means that the cause of the universe probably has that characteristic or something similar to it.

Ed's fallacious Law of Resemblance: effects must resemble causes.

Quote:

And only the Christian God has that characteristic of being a diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity. Therefore it is the most likely cause of the universe.

Many Hindus believe that the numerous deities of Hinduism are aspects of a single god. This single Hindu God is therefore a diversity within a unity, and one much more like the "real" Universe, which has much more than three parts.

So why not convert to Hinduism?

Ed · 09-15-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Actually Christianity does not promise personal happiness. God has promised a deep and abiding joy but not just superficial happiness all the time. This type of joy can occur even in periods of great sadness. It is hard to describe to someone who has never experienced it.

lp: Just as it may be hard to describe drunkenness to someone who has been sober all their life.

Although your analogy is obviously condescending and superior than thou, it is adequate enough.

Quote:

Ed: From all the verses talking about heaven we won't be singing hymns all day.

lp: Like what else will everybody be doing?

Well since there will be a new universe, ie "heavens and earth", we will probably be learning about it and exploring it.

Quote:

(white robes)

Ed: That is just an ancient hebrew symbol,

lp: Says who?

Ed, I remember how much expertise you have shown in the Hebrew language a few pages back.

Go ask you local religion professor or jewish rabbi.

Quote:

(me on how not getting to be with many of one's friends and relatives might seem like Hell...)

Ed: Because we learn from experience and knowledge that He is a just being.

lp: And how does one figure that out? And how does that apply to this case?

By seeing what He does in certain situations both past and present.

Quote:

lp: Charles Darwin and QueenofSwords have both objected to a creed that very clearly implies that many of their family and friends will be sentenced to eternal damnation on account of what they honestly believe. Ed, what is your answer to these two?

I don't know what they "honestly believe". Sometimes people are dishonest even to themselves.

Quote:

lp: Charles Darwin:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.

Not many people "wish" true Christianity to be true, they just find out that it is. I didn't want Christianity to be true, I just found out that it was.

Quote:

lp: And in some other threads here, QueenofSwords has stated something similar about not appreciating the prospect of the eternal damnation of many of her family and friends.

Sometimes truth is unpleasant, but that doesn't mean you cover your hears and reject it.

Quote:

Ed: ... it appears that they are not approaching the evidence with a truly open mind, even open to the possibility of the supernatural. ...

lp: Did this include having an open mind about the possibility that some other religion might be true? Like Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Hellenic paganism or ...

Yes, until you find out which one is the most rational and fits reality the best then you should reject the others.

Quote:

lp: Just to take one example, if one takes seriously the Shroud of Turin, then why not also take seriously the Cloak of Kandahar or the Tooth of Kandy?

Yes, here's the Tooth of Kandy's home page.

You should take seriously whichever one is backed up by the most evidence. Or reject both if neither has strong evidence.

Quote:

Ed: Because the ancient hebrew theocracy was God's representative on the earth at the time and was his arm of justice at the time. In addition, those other nations were dwelling in God's promised land for the jews.

lp: A tiny nation? Why are we supposed to take this male-bovine excrement seriously? And there are more civilized ways of dealing with squatters than murdering them.

I have given many reasons to take it seriously on this site. And they were far more than just squatters.

Quote:

(God changing his mind about something...)
ED: He didn't.

lp: Not even about creating humanity, as in the story of Noah's Flood?

Nope.

Quote:

Ed: Yes, because there is scientific evidence for a Triune creator

lp: A "triune" one? Why not a hundred-part one or a million-part one?

Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

Quote:

Ed: while there is no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary.

lp: And you are sure of this how?

It is called research.

Quote:

lp: (Hillary talking to ghosts...)
Ed: Yeah, hopefully you didn't vote for her or her husband, they both are a little too far out there!

lp: I don't see how that's any different from prayer.

Prayer is communication with a living person.

Quote:

lp: And I voted for Bill Clinton as the lesser of two evils. I don't live in New York State, so I could not vote for Hillary as Senator.

Now you have really disappointed me!

secular spoon · 09-16-2004, 01:21 AM

Well, I follow this thread enough - I figure I may as well post every now and again:

Quote:

lp: And in some other threads here, QueenofSwords has stated something similar about not appreciating the prospect of the eternal damnation of many of her family and friends.

ed:Sometimes truth is unpleasant, but that doesn't mean you cover your hears and reject it.

So the truth (that one's relatives might go to hell while you go to heaven) is unpleasant? Even while you're in heaven? If it's imperfect in that aspect, why not be imperfect in another (Like.. I dunno... god chaining you down to a spot and forcing you to praise him for eternity)??.

Quote:

Ed: ... it appears that they are not approaching the evidence with a truly open mind, even open to the possibility of the supernatural. ...

lp: Did this include having an open mind about the possibility that some other religion might be true? Like Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Hellenic paganism or ...

ed:Yes, until you find out which one is the most rational and fits reality the best then you should reject the others.

What criteria do you use to select which one "fits reality the best"? Or even which is most rational?

Quote:

(God changing his mind about something...)
ED: He didn't.

lp: Not even about creating humanity, as in the story of Noah's Flood?

ed:Nope.

So god created the world, populated it, left it for a while. Then killed everyone... because he WANTED TO from the beginning? Why'd he have to wait so long then? More victims?

Quote:

d: Yes, because there is scientific evidence for a Triune creator

lp: A "triune" one? Why not a hundred-part one or a million-part one?

ed:Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

Really? Lots of people I know experience just that on acid. Although if you want a better example look at the post above:

Quote:

lp: Many Hindus believe that the numerous deities of Hinduism are aspects of a single god. This single Hindu God is therefore a diversity within a unity, and one much more like the "real" Universe, which has much more than three parts.

So why not convert to Hinduism?

Quote:

lp: (Hillary talking to ghosts...)
Ed: Yeah, hopefully you didn't vote for her or her husband, they both are a little too far out there!

lp: I don't see how that's any different from prayer.

ed:Prayer is communication with a living person....

...who lives in the sky and we can't see. That's rational and "fits reality better" than talking to dead people how?

Quote:

Ed: while there is no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary.

lp: And you are sure of this how?

It is called research.

You RESEARCHED that? All I was lookin for was a claim that that sort of thing was irrational. So there's research that can scientifically prove/disprove the existance of ghosts.. but not god?

lpetrich · 09-16-2004, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Well since there will be a new universe, ie "heavens and earth", we will probably be learning about it and exploring it.

Which would be rather hard to do if one is singing hymns all day.

(white robes as a "hebrew symbol"...)

Quote:

Go ask you local religion professor or jewish rabbi.

Or perhaps somewhere online, if anywhere.

(learning that God is just...)

Quote:

By seeing what He does in certain situations both past and present.

And how does one determine what Mr. G. does in the present day?

(Charles Darwin and QueenofSwords...)

Quote:

I don't know what they "honestly believe". Sometimes people are dishonest even to themselves.

Can you show that that's the case for both CD and QoS?

(CD on how the eternal damnation of many of his favorite people is a "damnable doctrine"...)

Quote:

Not many people "wish" true Christianity to be true, they just find out that it is. ...

And what makes you so sure of that?

(QoS believing what CD had believed...)

Quote:

Sometimes truth is unpleasant, but that doesn't mean you cover your hears and reject it.

Does that apply to you also, Ed?

(Having an open mind about some other religion possibly being true...)

Quote:

Yes, until you find out which one is the most rational and fits reality the best then you should reject the others.

And if it is some belief system than yours that is the most rational and fits reality the best?

(the Shroud of Turin vs. the Cloak of Kandahar and the Tooth of Kandy...)

Quote:

You should take seriously whichever one is backed up by the most evidence. Or reject both if neither has strong evidence.

So if the Cloak of Kandahar turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Islam? And if the Tooth of Kandy turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Buddhism?

(Biblical genocide: the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question...)

Quote:

I have given many reasons to take it seriously on this site. And they were far more than just squatters.

(God changing his mind about creating humanity in the story of Noah's Flood)

Quote:

Nope.

I reread Genesis 6, and I see no reason to change my mind about this.

(a hundred-part or a million-part creator...)

Quote:

Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

Prove it.

(no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary?)

Quote:

It is called research.

What research?

Quote:

Prayer is communication with a living person.

As when one prays to Allah or Shiva or Isis or St. Anne or St. Jude or numerous other deities and saints...

(on how I could not vote for Hillary because I live in California...)

Quote:

Now you have really disappointed me!

What's so horrible about Hillary?

Ed · 09-18-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: Evolution explains WHY my "moral sense" is better than that of the person you're considering: it aids my own survival and that of my children.

Ed: How do you know you ought to aid your own survival and that of your children? What if someone doesn't want children? You just have a strong feeling to survive and keep your children safe. Maybe this other person does not have this feeling. Also you have not demonstrated that having these feelings is "better" than not having them. Why is your survival good?

jtb: I have already explained this (several times...)

Ultimately, there is no "better". The Universe doesn't care. Evolution, however, fully explains WHY humans develop certain emotional preferences: those that tend to aid their own survival and the survival of the human species. This explains why WE care.

So you admit that there is no better. So your feelings are no better than Hitlers. Evolution may explain why we care, but it doesn't explain why we OUGHT to care.

Quote:

jtb: Evolution and social conditioning easily explains this. Men who make a habit of going around raping women will get themselves killed. We evolved as social animals, and being antisocial is NOT a good survival/reproduction strategy.

Ed: But what if they don't get caught and killed, then is it alright?

jtb: For such a genetic predisposition to be truly successful, millions of generations of rapists would have to avoid being caught all the time. The killing of a single rapist (if it happens before he successfully reproduces) will extinguish all his potential descendants, ending his line.

Ed: So you think that if we kill all rapists before they have kids then we can eliminate rape from society? How does evolution tell you that you should help preserve human society? To evolution there is nothing special about humans, they are just another animal.

jtb: I'm saying that a genetic predisposition to rape wouldn't be a successful gene in human society: even if the congenital rapist managed to avoid getting killed, he would be imprisoned, ostracized, driven out, or whatever.

Who says that there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to rape? And you did not answer my second question. I am going to assume you cannot.

Quote:

jtb: You haven't addressed the fact that Christian theism doesn't give any additional reasons to behave morally. Why should I care what God wants me to do? What reason is there, except fear of punishment and the benefits of being accepted by society?

Also, since He designed the universe His moral laws provide the most fulfilling life possible in His universe and out of love for Him as stated above in an earlier post.

Ed · 09-19-2004, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmarker

Originally Posted by Ed
But only Christianity has the strong evidence to back it up.

dmarker: What strong evidence?

Look up and read all my posts.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2004, 09:19 PM	#432
Sturmrabe Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in Heathen lands where Odinn still holds sway... Posts: 266	AHAHAHA... how DARE you call anything said in that steaming pile of a post "scientific" or "Evidence"

09-13-2004, 10:46 PM	#433
Azathoth Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The centre of infinity Posts: 1,181	His heart? So God's not an attractive woman? That's the last time I get a bible story from any movie called; "The Sex Commandments."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.