MACS
  • MACS
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
8 years ago
I dunno, Victor... if we're going to be logical, I believe I read somewhere that creation is more likely than the big bang if you go by mathematical equations, is that not so?
tailgater
8 years ago

And how they seem absolutely unable or unwilling to just let the topic pass by without commenting.

burnem2 wrote:



I do love irony.




tailgater
8 years ago
A vegan, a cross-fitter, and an atheist walk into the room.

I know this, because each told me so within 5 minutes.






bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago
Well, where do I start with this...

If God exists, and it exists outside of this universe, then why would it GAF about any individual little human on a tiny spec of matter occupying a tiny, arbitrary section of space... inside an almost as tiny section of space that contains trillions of tiny specs of matter that we refer to as stars.

It wouldn't.

Second, if this being exists outside of time and space and is unaffected by either nor affected by matter, then where do you define t = 0? The arbitrary point in time loosely defined in Genesis? And at that point, then time doesn't exist? So, chronologically when does this happen? Why? What events lead up to this decision (oh ya, time doesn't exist at that point, so no event could have lead to this point).

Basically, the guy didn't prove sh1t, and he certainly didn't make any claims that can be considered logical by any definition of the word. He just spoke in an authoritative manner on a subject that he knows about as much as any other human (zilch, nothing, nada)... but I admit, he did sound like he knew what he was talking about... almost as if he said that same exact speech many times over the past who knows how long.

Doesn't make him right, and certainly doesn't make him smart.

dstieger
8 years ago

Alrighty then, let's have it here. I want one of the nonbelievers to defend their ideal. Tell me what's so great about being atheist, how you came to be that way, what YOU believe. Have at it...................

burnem2 wrote:



burnem, to me, your questions appear to assume that belief/non-belief is a choice. To me, it isn't.

I wouldn't say that non-belief is an ideal in any way. In fact, believers have some great advantages -- belief in higher beings relieve many of personal responsibilities; it may give comfort in the 'finite-ness' of life; the sense of purpose that may come from doing 'churchy' things; the community that church provides, the ability to easily find group of like-minded people to share, socialize, etc.

I can only say, for me, that I can, in no way, conceive of a God...it just doesn't compute for me at all. I have the exact same reaction to someone's belief in God that I do to someone else's belief in ghosts, or witchcraft, or gangstalkers. Pick some belief that you have trouble accepting....cows as holy animals...or Scientologits Xenu bringing life to earth in spacecraft millions of years ago...or ancient religious human sacrifice...and examine your feeling or reaction to it. It will probably be the same as mine towards dieties.

I work pretty hard to respect beliefs, even if I can't comprehend them. But, admittedly, I don't always do a very good job of that. But, I do sense some harm, or at least waste in things such as prayer, or ritual forgiveness when remorse is lacking...or other things that result from religious believing.

I have issues with organized religion, as well, but that relationship is a bit more complicated. I fully acknowledge that much good comes of it. But, I'm not convinced that the sum total of goodness outweighs the bad....maybe its a wash, but while I might roll my eyes, I do otherwise try to respect those that are actually better for it.
burnem2
8 years ago
Well thought out and articulated. I respect your position, though I obviously disagree. And thanks for taking the energy to actually respond.
victor809
8 years ago
MACS... what mathematical equation could you possibly be talking about?... how is one mathematically assessing the probability of creation?
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago

Alrighty then, let's have it here. I want one of the nonbelievers to defend their ideal.

burnem2 wrote:



Tell me what's so great about being atheist

burnem2 wrote:



The most important ones, is we don't have to go to church every week, nor do we have to repent every time we fk up.

Basically we don't have to waste time thinking about what happens to us when we die nor do we waste time trying to please a being that may or may not exist.


How you came to be that way, what YOU believe. Have at it...................

burnem2 wrote:



Learned too much about math and science for one.

For two, it all sounds like bullsh1t to me, all of it. I've came up with possible ideas of how consciousness and the physical world interact, and have had people tell me that my ideas are sound and they could see them as reasonable (believers and non-believers).

Then the conversation usually ends when I say that I believe that no human could possibly have an answer or know such things and the probability that any human derived ideas are remotely close to correct are so near zero that the probability might as well be zero.

So I think all religious ideas are a load of sh1t, and my own ideas are no exception.

And generally speaking, I'm going to assume I'm smarter than the vast majority of people I meet regardless of their beliefs. Not due to arrogance, but just living enough life to know that it's usually true :P

(ok, ok, that last one was uncalled for:)
cameroon
8 years ago
Return to forum without praying . . . at least to YOUR god
jjanecka
8 years ago
Dstieger, you touched on some pretty decent points and I feel like you and Victor are probably the two most level headed atheists on the boards.

I have a few atheist friends much with your veiwpoint and the belief in ghosts, some prayers, unconditional forgiveness, those are hard things for most people to accept.

Ghosts; all I can say, rationally, if you've seen the movie interstellar, and how that guy got stuck in space/time where all the spacial dimensions of time were mapped out, if a theory like that were true, would give validation to ghosts, purgatory and similiar states of existence/phenomenom.

Prayer, a lot of people ramble on with feelings and emotion in their prayer. I prefer the Catholic Methods. The Rosary and Divine Mercy, the Litany of Saints, just repeating the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be. Those are disciplinary prayers that lay the foundation for deep meditative thought where an individual repeats each statement and deeply ponders the meaning. Grant it, you could expand your deep thought process by other means but these repetive prayers are what propelled technology all the way into the era of reformation. They're also the prayers by which the Catholic Monsignor, Georges Lemaitre, used to meditate upon the issues within Physical Cosmology when he explained the theory of the "Big Bang." So to say prayer is a waste; I am a bit speculative of that assessment.

I am not familiar exactly with ritual forgiveness without true repentance and contriteness of heart.
Buckwheat
8 years ago

It's funny how people can't comprehend the idea of a force being larger and more powerful than this universe.

jjanecka wrote:



I wonder what everyone here would have thought if the video was of an Iman quoting the Quran? My answer is and will always be 42.
DrafterX
8 years ago
Ghosts are peoples who's bodies were destroyed when they were out astral-projecting and stuff... 😟
MACS
  • MACS
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
8 years ago

MACS... what mathematical equation could you possibly be talking about?... how is one mathematically assessing the probability of creation?

victor809 wrote:



Our existence on this planet, in this universe, as we are today... has a mathematical probability of almost zero. We shouldn't exist. Everything had to happen perfectly. If any of the scientific mathematical laws we know of was even off by a fraction of a fraction, we could not exist.

So the probability of us not existing is much, much higher than us existing. So to believe that the infinitesimal chance of our existence happened without influence is kinda crazy. Our existence as we are is mathematically akin to winning the lottery every day for a month straight. How does that happen without someone stacking the numbers each time?

Not sure if I explained it right, but that's the gist of it.
DrMaddVibe
8 years ago

That's the wrong question.
If there is no evidence for a religion the default should be to not believe in it. That isn't "great" and it isn't some "ideal"... it's common sense. To do otherwise should be considered the outlier position which requires defending.

victor809 wrote:




You just made my point.

You want to not believe...just like Life and it's sanctity. Substitute the word religion with Life and there is the whine and the drain to it all.

I could never, even as a child wrap my mind around the notion that I'm going to believe in a nothing.
DrMaddVibe
8 years ago

A vegan, a cross-fitter, and an atheist walk into the room.

I know this, because each told me so within 5 minutes.






tailgater wrote:




[frypan] [frypan] [frypan]


[whip]
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago

Our existence on this planet, in this universe, as we are today... has a mathematical probability of almost zero. We shouldn't exist. Everything had to happen perfectly. If any of the scientific mathematical laws we know of was even off by a fraction of a fraction, we could not exist.

So the probability of us not existing is much, much higher than us existing. So to believe that the infinitesimal chance of our existence happened without influence is kinda crazy. Our existence as we are is mathematically akin to winning the lottery every day for a month straight. How does that happen without someone stacking the numbers each time?

Not sure if I explained it right, but that's the gist of it.

MACS wrote:




I agree, the probability of all the events that lead to life coming to be as it is on this planet was near zero (I think you're lottery analogy is probably a little higher of a probability than it actually is).

With that said, if it wasn't us, it would be someone else, if it wasn't here, it would be somewhere else.

I would say the probability of life existing elsewhere in this universe (or even this galaxy) is so near 100% that it's pretty much a certainty.

So the probability of hairless (almost hairless) apes coming to be on an arbitrary planet picked at random is very near 0.

Where the probability of any life coming to be on at least one planet of the subset of all planets that are not currently known to harbor life is near 100%.
victor809
8 years ago

Our existence on this planet, in this universe, as we are today... has a mathematical probability of almost zero. We shouldn't exist. Everything had to happen perfectly. If any of the scientific mathematical laws we know of was even off by a fraction of a fraction, we could not exist.

So the probability of us not existing is much, much higher than us existing. So to believe that the infinitesimal chance of our existence happened without influence is kinda crazy. Our existence as we are is mathematically akin to winning the lottery every day for a month straight. How does that happen without someone stacking the numbers each time?

Not sure if I explained it right, but that's the gist of it.

MACS wrote:




.... there's too much missing to that MACS... way too much.

The absolute biggest flaw in the logic, is it is trying to map out the odds of us existing, and those being "low" (per that argument) is evidence that there must be a creator to initiate... but that creates a completely different system, one with a creator. Once you do that you have to add in some "odds" of a creator existing first to then create us. As a "creator" is not really defined, and there are no physical laws around it, there's no way of even semi-accurately assessing odds of its existence. The person making up your idea above is starting from a point where they make assumptions they simply cannot make (and still be making a good argument).

and that's just the main problem. there are secondary problems with the idea which fails to take into account the billions of different permutations of planets, conditions and the millions of years of planetary existence... all allowing for things with small odds of occurring many many opportunities to try. ie... there may be small odds of you rolling 10 die and getting 10 6's. But what if I gave you an entire year to re-roll as many times as you want. Do you think you'll probably hit 10 6s before the year is up?
victor809
8 years ago

You just made my point.

You want to not believe...just like Life and it's sanctity. Substitute the word religion with Life and there is the whine and the drain to it all.

I could never, even as a child wrap my mind around the notion that I'm going to believe in a nothing.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



huh.

your statement makes no sense. Your inability to wrap your head around the notion of believing in "a nothing" is not really anyone else's problem. (and more to the fact... what is "a nothing" and how does it relate to either religion or atheism?)....

because your mind can't conceive of something doesn't make you right. Just means you need to think harder.
tailgater
8 years ago
Hehe.
It's funny when people try to prove they're really really smart by trying to prove someone else's faith has no merit.
They talk about probabilities and stats and sciency facts, all the while not knowing what the word "faith" means.

Religion is a concrete, man-made entity.
But faith and belief are not.

You may as well try to prove that eggplant is better tasting than steak.


I find it odd that atheists like to point out inconsistencies in faith as proof it's false. Yet contradictions in science are just a new vision based on the latest evidence.
It's OK for them to change their views based on new information. But it's not OK for a creationist (for example) to alter their view on how their god can coexist with scientific evidence on evolution. It's like they (the atheists) want to make the rules for what's OK to believe in.


dstieger
8 years ago

Hehe.
It's funny when people try to prove they're really really smart by trying to prove someone else's faith has no merit.
They talk about probabilities and stats and sciency facts, all the while not knowing what the word "faith" means.

Religion is a concrete, man-made entity.
But faith and belief are not.

You may as well try to prove that eggplant is better tasting than steak.


I find it odd that atheists like to point out inconsistencies in faith as proof it's false. Yet contradictions in science are just a new vision based on the latest evidence.
It's OK for them to change their views based on new information. But it's not OK for a creationist (for example) to alter their view on how their god can coexist with scientific evidence on evolution. It's like they (the atheists) want to make the rules for what's OK to believe in.


tailgater wrote:



I was with you right up until the last sentence...because I think that it applies to everyone
Users browsing this topic