PDA

View Full Version : Atheism: What a Joke



patriot45
09-21-2010, 11:47 PM
Spontaneous creation of the Universe!! (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillMurchison/2010/09/21/atheism_what_a_joke)
:rolleyes:



Assuming, no doubt, our anxious world could use a good laugh, Stephen Hawking undertakes to provide one. He says the universe created itself.

The theory itself isn't the joke. The joke is the dogged persistence of atheists trying in the face of common sense to persuade the world as to the wisdom they see in their every utterance. Another way of putting it would be, atheism is the joke.

The likes of Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins -- how, by the way, does Britain, the land that bred Lewis, Chesterton and Wesley, manage to produce so many certified atheists? -- Hawking & Co., I say, want everyone to see God as, I guess, some sort of celestial intrusion in the affairs of intelligent men and women.

Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," (written with one Leonard Mlodinow) argues that "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I suppose the intent of such stuff is to render non-atheists, Christians especially, mute and fearful. Which is more than a little bit odd. Who is likely to grow mute in the face of a bald claim that the universe more or less invented itself? Was Hawking there with his camera? That would be the first question. Soon other questions would follow. The vast variety of life -- that was spontaneous, too? The human organism -- the brain, the eye, the ear, the digestive tract -- just sort of, you know, happened? The sky, the seas, the seasons, not to mention human reproduction -- those things, too? And the greatest minds of history failed to catch on, century after God-fearing century? That or they practiced denial? Uhhhh ... yeah.

There is a poignancy to the atheist fixation on showing up God. What's wrong with these people? Many of them are technically intelligent (Hawking is routinely labeled "brilliant"), but they swallow with satisfied smiles the intellectual bilge called atheism. They've been doing it forever -- so long indeed that taking an atheist seriously requires a leap of faith so enormous that no one, least of all the atheist himself, can see from jumping-off spot to landing point.


The atheist mode is pure assertion. It's, shut up, listen here, I'm giving you numskulls The Facts. I imagine there have been, here and there, pleasant atheists. If so, one rarely runs across them. They've all got some Hawking, some Hitchens, some Mencken or Shaw or Robert Ingersoll in them: the desire to strut before the Stupid Masses; to show off a bit; to puncture the illusions of folk less enlightened than themselves, pinned down by the weight of superstition and terror. What a bunch of rubes and yokels, these believers! Not that they don't come in handy as rhetorical foils and customers.

Continued (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillMurchison/2010/09/21/atheism_what_a_joke/page/2)

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:25 AM
Why is there anything rather than nothing? the most basic question.

lacarnut
09-22-2010, 02:41 AM
Why is there anything rather than nothing? the most basic question.

I keep asking myself that when you continue to post stupid shit.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:35 AM
who are you again?

lacarnut
09-22-2010, 04:00 AM
who are you again?

I know who I am; you are a liberal POS.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 08:50 AM
Why is there anything rather than nothing? the most basic question.

God.

marv
09-22-2010, 08:58 AM
I'm an atheist (NOTICE: I am NOT an Atheist) because I've never found any reason to accept a creation, intelligent design, Big Bang, or any other spontaneous "beginning" of everything.

Why not just the simple concept of a universe infinite in dimension and time?

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 10:11 AM
I'm an atheist (NOTICE: I am NOT an Atheist) because I've never found any reason to accept a creation, intelligent design, Big Bang, or any other spontaneous "beginning" of everything.

Why not just the simple concept of a universe infinite in dimension and time?

Expansion kind of puts a crimp on the infinite universe concept. Current evidence suggest strongly in a beginning.

There is also a logic and mathematical problem with the concept of infinite time. If time were infinite then there would be a infinite number of moments between now and some point in the past. You would never be able to reach the present from the past. In short with infinite time you can never get to now and since now exists for you and I time must have a beginning otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.

marv
09-22-2010, 12:01 PM
Expansion? If you're talking about Hubbell's Red Shift, there are other explanations. A problem with infinite time? The Judaeo/Christian god is supposed to be eternal.

Infinity is understandable, if difficult to imagine. Wave mechanics explains how light gains a red shift over distance.

Questions:
What was there before an eternal God created a finite Universe?
What was there before the Big Bang?
If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
What will God do with Alpha Centauri A after Armageddon?

djones520
09-22-2010, 12:06 PM
Expansion? If you're talking about Hubbell's Red Shift, there are other explanations. A problem with infinite time? The Judaeo/Christian god is supposed to be eternal.

Infinity is understandable, if difficult to imagine. Wave mechanics explains how light gains a red shift over distance.

Questions:
What was there before an eternal God created a finite Universe?
What was there before the Big Bang?
If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
What will God do with Alpha Centauri A after Armageddon?

Why bother with the questions Marv? They won't change a single opinion.

I find it much easier to just ignore these threads that attack our religious beliefs.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 12:30 PM
Expansion? If you're talking about Hubbell's Red Shift, there are other explanations. A problem with infinite time? The Judaeo/Christian god is supposed to be eternal.

Infinity is understandable, if difficult to imagine. Wave mechanics explains how light gains a red shift over distance.

Questions:
What was there before an eternal God created a finite Universe?
What was there before the Big Bang?
If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
What will God do with Alpha Centauri A after Armageddon?

An infinite universe is tricky. If you believe that every event is caused by events that preceded it, you end up with a logical problem of the universe being caused by nothing, or itself.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 12:32 PM
What was there before an eternal God created a finite Universe?

Tricky, depends on what you mean by God.


What was there before the Big Bang?

Presumeably this question is nonsense because there was no "before" the Big Bang, since time itself started there.

If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

Nothing at all.

marv
09-22-2010, 01:13 PM
Again, you've displayed your immaturity wee wee.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:29 PM
Expansion? If you're talking about Hubbell's Red Shift, there are other explanations. A problem with infinite time? The Judaeo/Christian god is supposed to be eternal.

Infinity is understandable, if difficult to imagine. Wave mechanics explains how light gains a red shift over distance.

Questions:
What was there before an eternal God created a finite Universe?
What was there before the Big Bang?
If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
What will God do with Alpha Centauri A after Armageddon?

The Judeo/Christian God is outside of time and is thus eternal. Since he is outside of time (time begin a property of creation) their is no before to consider. To even wonder what is before time is to not understand the question. This addresses your first two questions

What is the universe expanding into? The is nothing to expand into. To suggest that it is expanding in to something implies that there was something there before the universe. Like there being no such thing as time and the arrow of time until there was a universe in which time could exist, the same thing applies to space. There is no space until space is created.

Ask yourself this, what does a blind person see? They can't see black or even darkness because they have no sight to preceive darkness. Same thought processes work for before time existed and what space expands into.

Your last question I will answer with scripture.


1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Revelation 21:1-4

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:50 PM
An infinite universe is tricky. If you believe that every event is caused by events that preceded it, you end up with a logical problem of the universe being caused by nothing, or itself.


The law of causality

Every effect must have a cause
Effects themselves can be causes
A Cause need not have a preceding effect

The logical fallacy of self creation.

Something can't be self creating because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. I can not create myself because I would have to exist before I existed.
God could not have created himself. I can not be a cause and an effect in the same relationship.

Now an infinite universe would not by necessity need a creator because it was infinite. It had always existed. However, Current science indicates that the universe had a beginning so our best guess is that our universe is not infinite. It had to have be created some how. It could not have created itself.

Either there was another finite universe that lead to our universe or something infinite created our finite universe. If another universe spawned our universe then you have to apply the same logic to it and on an on you go. Now you run in to the infinite time problem. If there is infinite time or in this case infinite universes taking infinite time to propagate, you would never have gotten to the point were this universe came in to being.

marv
09-22-2010, 02:04 PM
FlaGator, I offered my responses to the points made in this thread. I respect people of faith, and won't argue your counter-responses. People are free to believe what they wish.

And I agree with djones520 that people will believe what they want to believe.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:22 PM
Ask yourself this, what does a blind person see? They can't see black or even darkness because they have no sight to preceive darkness. Same thought processes work for before time existed and what space expands into.

This is the 'negation of negation' that I like to reference when talking about nothingness-as-it-is(n't).

a blind-from-birth person doesn't see black, which is the presence of the absence of light, they is an absence of absence itself (some might call this wholeness)

It's a fundamental to negative theology, eastern orthodox christianity, hegelian dialectics and far more.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:23 PM
The law of causality

Every effect must have a cause
Effects themselves can be causes
A Cause need not have a preceding effect

The logical fallacy of self creation.

Something can't be self creating because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. I can not create myself because I would have to exist before I existed.
God could not have created himself. I can not be a cause and an effect in the same relationship.

Now an infinite universe would not by necessity need a creator because it was infinite. It had always existed. However, Current science indicates that the universe had a beginning so our best guess is that our universe is not infinite. It had to have be created some how. It could not have created itself.

Either there was another finite universe that lead to our universe or something infinite created our finite universe. If another universe spawned our universe then you have to apply the same logic to it and on an on you go. Now you run in to the infinite time problem. If there is infinite time or in this case infinite universes taking infinite time to propagate, you would never have gotten to the point were this universe came in to being.

The Kantian Revolution.

There is no time or space as such, and we participate in the construction of reality by imposing such concepts in the very act of perceiving it.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 02:24 PM
FlaGator, I offered my responses to the points made in this thread. I respect people of faith, and won't argue your counter-responses. People are free to believe what they wish.

And I agree with djones520 that people will believe what they want to believe.

I have thought about this a great deal and I do find it rational and logical to accept the existence of God. however, I was not trying convert you. I was answering the questions you put to me based on the logic and reason I've applied to the same questions that you asked when I asked them of myself.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:27 PM
I believe in Atheistic spiritual faith. I don't find believing in the existence of God to be logical or rational. I think God can only be accepted in an irrational leap into the unknown.

my 2 cents

CueSi
09-22-2010, 02:40 PM
FlaGator, I offered my responses to the points made in this thread. I respect people of faith, and won't argue your counter-responses. People are free to believe what they wish.

And I agree with djones520 that people will believe what they want to believe.

This...just don't be an asshole. :D

~QC

hampshirebrit
09-22-2010, 02:47 PM
the desire to strut before the Stupid Masses; to show off a bit; to puncture the illusions of folk less enlightened than themselves, pinned down by the weight of superstition and terror. What a bunch of rubes and yokels, these believers! Not that they don't come in handy as rhetorical foils and customers.

The exact same thoughts are equally likely to have been held by any number of priests of every religious inclination over the centuries.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:04 PM
I've spent a few years with a primary wish to pop the illusory bubble of folk less enlightened than myself. The key is always the same: show them that the foundation of their structural reality is not actually resting on anything.

The world is resting on the back of a turtle ;)

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 03:11 PM
This is the 'negation of negation' that I like to reference when talking about nothingness-as-it-is(n't).

a blind-from-birth person doesn't see black, which is the presence of the absence of light, they is an absence of absence itself (some might call this wholeness)

It's a fundamental to negative theology, eastern orthodox christianity, hegelian dialectics and far more.

I think you missed my point. I was using the blind person analogy comparatively. It was not meant to be in perfect relation to what I was comparing.

Before time the was obviously no time. Before space there was obviously not space. There is no 'negation of negation' here. Your terminology is weak. There was not time for God to be doing something in before He created time and there was no space in which the universe to expand.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 03:16 PM
The Kantian Revolution.

There is no time or space as such, and we participate in the construction of reality by imposing such concepts in the very act of perceiving it.

Perhaps it isn't our preception of reality that creates it but God's preception of it? That was Bishop George Berkley's view on reality.

Kant, for all his genius was, in my opinion, wrong about certain things. He stated that we whole live in the phenominal realm can not bridge the divide to the nominal realm where God exists. His mistake that God was incapable of spanning the abyss which would limit the power of an all power being who is the nominal realm and who created the phenominal realm.

wilbur
09-22-2010, 03:17 PM
Oh, I just can't resist this thread.

Notice how the article in the OP instantly moves to shrug off the arguments of one of the most brilliant physicists of our time with nothing but his own snide derision. Pretty sad. Call me crazy, but I'll take Stephen Hawking's opinion about the origins of the universe over Ol' Bill Murchison's of Townhall.com any day. There isn't a single bit in the article that signals that this guy even understands (or has even read) anything about Hawking's new hypothesis. Do tell us why it is so unbelievably implausible or impossible Mr. Murchison. Present your case. I bet its because Stephen Hawking is just desperate to explain away God, so he can follow through with all his deviant sexual desires without accountability... oh.. wait..

I spit out my drink when I read this line of the article: "The atheist mode is pure assertion. It's, shut up, listen here, I'm giving you numskulls The Facts. " Heh. Stephen Hawking, arguably the worlds most renown expert on the origin of the universe, writes a book on his topic of expertise and this guy just says, "Nuh uh, atheists are a joke!". Obviously, pure assertion is a tactic he finds legitimate.

Get real!

And at the end of the day, there is no logical contradiction between the claims "God exists" and "The universe didnt need God in order to be created". Stephen said the latter, but he didnt deny the former.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:27 PM
Perhaps it isn't our preception of reality that creates it but God's preception of it? That was Bishop George Berkley's view on reality.

Kant, for all his genius was, in my opinion, wrong about certain things. He stated that we whole live in the phenominal realm can not bridge the divide to the nominal realm where God exists. His mistake that God was incapable of spanning the abyss which would limit the power of an all power being who is the nominal realm and who created the phenominal realm.

"all powerful" is a one of the conceptions that Kant asserted the human mental apperatus applied onto the conception of reality, forming our very idea of a God, but that the "Real God" would only be limited by describing him in ANY way, including all powerful.

Perhaps our perception of reality IS God's perception of reality but the problem is that our Ego or Self traps that Holy Perception into a framework of our own creation. "Self is the only prison that can ever bind the soul." ~Henry Van Dyke

We could be putting all these limits and boundaries and concepts onto Raw Reality (which is God) and what we are left with is our ego-centric Phenomenal reality.


Some may disagree with me, but I've argued that Kant, despite his assertion otherwise, included the means to bridge the gap between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal within his Categorical Imperative, with his conception of Good Will (very similar to Christian conception of Faith) being the only absolutely morally Good thing and the source of our Goodness, our Freedom, and access to the Ultimate.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 03:33 PM
I believe in Atheistic spiritual faith. I don't find believing in the existence of God to be logical or rational. I think God can only be accepted in an irrational leap into the unknown.

my 2 cents

The 'leap of faith' is a myth developed by those who chose not to explore the logical and rational possiblities of God to their conclusion. Both Plato and Aristotle and many others have used reason to deduce the existence of a prime cause, original form, etc that closely resembles the God of the Judeo/Christain faith. What seems to happen for some (not all) who have issues buying into the existence of God through rational thought approach the point where His existence becomes inevitable conclusion opt for motivated irrationality. They do such things as deny the law of non-contradiction or perform whatever mental gymnastics that are necessary to avoid the conclusion.

Now, I'm not saying that because I can logically argue for God that this proves the existence of God; I am just stating that one can not logically rule out His existence. You can deny his existence based on personal feelings and opinions but you can't logically conclude that there is no God. This debunks the whole 'leap of faith' myth.

wilbur
09-22-2010, 03:33 PM
Expansion kind of puts a crimp on the infinite universe concept. Current evidence suggest strongly in a beginning.

There is also a logic and mathematical problem with the concept of infinite time. If time were infinite then there would be a infinite number of moments between now and some point in the past. You would never be able to reach the present from the past. In short with infinite time you can never get to now and since now exists for you and I time must have a beginning otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.

You must finally be catching on to William Lane Craig.

But this is a pretty bad argument. Craig gets a lot of flak for mistreating and misunderstanding the nature of infinity, but I don't have the expertise necessary to debunk all of it. But suffice to say, that even if time stretches on into the infinite past and future on a timeline, the present must be somewhere on it. It does not follow that it could not be here. It has to be somewhere. There's just no good reason why it must be at some other arbitrary point on the timeline, but not here in what we perceive to be the present. If it can't be here, it can't be anywhere. If it can be somewhere else, it certainly can be here.


But for what its worth, most physicists today believe in B-theory time. In B-Theory time, time is one static block. We have the sensation of moving along a time continuum and existing only in the present, but under B-Theory the future and past are just as real as the present. Under this view, there is no "creation of the universe", nor even cosmic expansion as we typically think of it. This 'infinite time' argument is incoherent under this model, since all moments in time exist simultaneously.

wilbur
09-22-2010, 03:35 PM
Now, I'm not saying that because I can logically argue for God that this proves the existence of God; I am just stating that one can not logically rule out His existence. You can deny his existence based on personal feelings and opinions but you can't logically conclude that there is no God. This debunks the whole 'leap of faith' myth.

The vast majority of atheists do not "rule out" the existence of God entirely - they suggest that God is improbable, or that God is an insufficient or arbitrary explanation for the universe.

And there are at least two ways to argue against something... one is through deductive logic - you show that something must necessarily be false or true, using deduction. The other is through evidential reasoning. One can look at the evidence available and assign probabilities to all the possible explanations for the evidence.

Few atheist thinkers believe that the existence of God has been logically disproved, though the arguments do go back and forth... the problem of evil and suffering still presents the biggest challenge to theism - the arguments from either side continue to this day. But even if nobody wins in the deductive proof department, there's still evidential problems to deal with - and this is where atheism prevails over theism hands down, no contest.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 03:48 PM
Oh, I just can't resist this thread.

Notice how the article in the OP instantly moves to shrug off the arguments of one of the most brilliant physicists of our time with nothing but his own snide derision. Pretty sad. Call me crazy, but I'll take Stephen Hawking's opinion about the origins of the universe over Ol' Bill Murchison's of Townhall.com any day. There isn't a single bit in the article that signals that this guy even understands (or has even read) anything about Hawking's new hypothesis. Do tell us why it is so unbelievably implausible or impossible Mr. Murchison. Present your case. I bet its because Stephen Hawking is just desperate to explain away God, so he can follow through with all his deviant sexual desires without accountability... oh.. wait..

I spit out my drink when I read this line of the article: "The atheist mode is pure assertion. It's, shut up, listen here, I'm giving you numskulls The Facts. " Heh. Stephen Hawking, arguably the worlds most renown expert on the origin of the universe, writes a book on his topic of expertise and this guy just says, "Nuh uh, atheists are a joke!". Obviously, pure assertion is a tactic he finds legitimate.

Get real!

And at the end of the day, there is no logical contradiction between the claims "God exists" and "The universe didnt need God in order to be created". Stephen said the latter, but he didnt deny the former.

Stephen Hawkin isn't that well thought of any more. Many of his "discoveries" have been debunked. He has admitted this himself when he had to correct some of his own follies. He is famous for writting a book that lay people could grasp and for suffering ALS for as long as he has. There many I think are more intlelligent. Witten, Penrose and particularly John Bell seem to be far more capable physicists than Hawkin.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 03:50 PM
The vast majority of atheists do not "rule out" the existence of God entirely - they suggest that God is improbable, or that God is an insufficient or arbitrary explanation for the universe.

I never stated that they did rule him out completely. I was just arguing the point that belief in God is not a leap of faith when a logical conclusion of his existence can be arrived at through rational thought.

Lager
09-22-2010, 03:52 PM
Oh, I just can't resist this thread.



I know. These function like Bat Signals for you. You haven't been around for a bit, maybe this is someone's way of finding out if you're still out there. :D

wilbur
09-22-2010, 03:56 PM
Stephen Hawkin isn't that well thought of any more. Many of his "discoveries" have been debunked. He has admitted this himself when he had to correct some of his own follies. He is famous for writting a book that lay people could grasp and for suffering ALS for as long as he has. There many I think are more intlelligent. Witten, Penrose and particularly John Bell seem to be far more capable physicists than Hawkin.

Uh what? I sure didnt get that memo. Stephen Hawking is just as relevant as he's always been. Penrose, at least when it comes to his theories of consciousness, is hardly well thought of or accepted.

wilbur
09-22-2010, 03:57 PM
I know. These function like Bat Signals for you. You haven't been around for a bit, maybe this is someone's way of finding out if you're still out there. :D

The stupider the post, the harder it is for me to resist.

wilbur
09-22-2010, 04:25 PM
I never stated that they did rule him out completely. I was just arguing the point that belief in God is not a leap of faith when a logical conclusion of his existence can be arrived at through rational thought.

That depends - it's not necessarily irrational to provisionally accept the hypothesis "God exists" as plausible (though not probable)... but it certainly is irrational to believe that you know that God does actually exist. And it certainly is irrational to believe in any of the monotheistic religions, all of which are obviously false.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 04:27 PM
lol wilber likes to sit outside of churches on sunday smugly reading The God Delusion

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 04:28 PM
Still, I say he's right. I'd go as far as to argue that organized religion is the largest obstical to spiritual communion with God.

Bailey
09-22-2010, 05:07 PM
Still, I say he's right. I'd go as far as to argue that organized religion is the largest obstical to spiritual communion with God.

Ya I am going too take spiritual advice (of any kind) from two of the biggest knuckle heads on this board. (We We and Wilbur)


/sarcasm off

marv
09-22-2010, 06:10 PM
If the claim is made that something exists, there's an obligation to prove it. I don't personally insist for that obligation to be fulfilled, but I do respect the holding of that claim - as I've said earlier. But I claim that top sirloin steak is better ground up into hamburger patties!

I have no qualms about personal beliefs - so long as no one is harmed.

N.B. My wife of over thirty years is a Southern Baptist, and we have no problems. Hey, I'm easy to get along with.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-23-2010, 12:13 AM
This thread only makes believers look bad. One thing I dislike about the big name Atheists like Dawkins is their seeming need to mock or belittle the faith or religion(s) of believers. I don't think we should stoop to that level. Let them believe what they want; We believe what we want. These religious arguments are silly and a waste of time since no one who is hard in their stance--Atheist or Believer; Jew or Christian or Hindu or Muslim--No one of these people is going to convince the other that he or she is wrong, and there's no need to.

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, fine. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, fine. If someone wants to believe in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Taoism, Buddhism, Scientology, it's fine. Just don't push your beliefs or non-belief on me.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 08:45 AM
No one of these people is going to convince the other that he or she is wrong, and there's no need to.

Wrong. Muslims have one belief: convert or die. You're either a Muslim of you're kuffar and infidel. All religions bar one are tolerant and peaceful.

Only one religion enforces its belief with bloodshed and death.

Islam.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-23-2010, 08:51 AM
Wrong. Muslims have one belief: convert or die. You're either a Muslim of you're kuffar and infidel. All religions bar one are tolerant and peaceful.

Only one religion enforces its belief with bloodshed and death.

Islam.

The Muslims I know haven't told me convert or die.:confused:

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 09:36 AM
The Muslims I know haven't told me convert or die.

Yet.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 10:09 AM
Wrong. Muslims have one belief: convert or die. You're either a Muslim of you're kuffar and infidel. All religions bar one are tolerant and peaceful.

Only one religion enforces its belief with bloodshed and death.

Islam.

lmao

http://www.martinsville.k12.va.us/mhs/gdean/test2/crusades%5B1%5D.jpg

http://johnlarroquetteproject.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/medieval-fun.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ApKMKtA2U

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 10:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNTNg5X-Sgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8zmsrncSBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBuiSP8X6E

marv
09-23-2010, 10:19 AM
Sonnabend is right.

A basic tenant of Islam is that the World belongs to Allah, aka al-Ilah - the ancient Arab moon god. Check http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 10:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNTNg5X-Sgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8zmsrncSBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBuiSP8X6E

Again literally no one argues that this doesn't happen, yet he posts this anyway as if someone is arguing that.

Sonnabend please stop arguing with yourself it's a little concerning to be honest.

wilbur
09-23-2010, 10:55 AM
If the Jews can manage to create a peaceful religion out of the barbaric and atrocity filled Torah - a book that contains "moral laws" that are disgusting and barbaric at their worst, or totally nonsensical at their best - Muslims can certainly do the same with the Quran. And many have.

That being said, they are still all false, and its about time people started realizing it.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 11:01 AM
Muslims can certainly do the same with the Quran. And many have.

Oh? I have a challenge.

Ask any Muslim if he / she believes that burning the US flag is an "expression of free speech". Then when they say yes, ask them why the same can't be said of a Koran being burned.

The reply, I guarantee, will be most informative,

wilbur
09-23-2010, 11:07 AM
Oh? I have a challenge.

Ask any Muslim if he / she believes that burning the US flag is an "expression of free speech". Then when they say yes, ask them why the same can't be said of a Koran being burned.

The reply, I guarantee, will be most informative,

Talked to a lot of Muslims have you?

Most Muslim's don't care... at least not enough to do anything other than complain... say in a similar way to Christians who complain about things like Piss Christ, or PZ Meyers desecrating a consecrated wafer.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 11:10 AM
Talked to a lot of Muslims have you?

Yes I have, as a matter of fact. Seen enough of the "protests" that were, as usual accompanied with threats of violence.


Most Muslim's don't care... at least not enough to do anything other than complain... say in a similar way to Christians who complain about things like Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ), or PZ Meyers desecrating a consecrated wafer.

Piss Christ didn't cause 102 deaths. Didn't cause the auithor to go into hiding after two jihadis tried to kidnap and murder his child. Isn't still in hiding after repeated attempts on his life.

Wasn't stabbed to death.

wilbur
09-23-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes I have, as a matter of fact. Seen enough of the "protests" that were, as usual accompanied with threats of violence.



Piss Christ didn't cause 102 deaths. Didn't cause the auithor to go into hiding after two jihadis tried to kidnap and murder his child. Isn't still in hiding after repeated attempts on his life.

Wasn't stabbed to death.

Trust me, I of all people don't ignore the disproportionate amount of these sorts of atrocities coming from Islamic culture. But your generalizations about all Muslims are about as hysterical and non-sensical as anti-jew Nazi propaganda.

I'm sure your reply will be a flurry of more cherry picked news articles about terrorist attacks by Muslims - but that will only prove to us that you build your opinions by deliberate confirmation bias.

Fact of the matter is, its a *tiny* subset of all Muslims in the world who would actually want to blow themselves or anyone else up or care enough to issue death threats against people who desecrate the Quran.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 11:24 AM
Oh? I have a challenge.

Ask any Muslim if he / she believes that burning the US flag is an "expression of free speech". Then when they say yes, ask them why the same can't be said of a Koran being burned.

The reply, I guarantee, will be most informative,

Okay I asked some online muslim buddies of mine who just so happen to be leftist of sorts (from a liberal source), many are "radical leftists" and socialists as you would say.

Here is what they said (each number is a different person):

1. burning the Qur'an is still protected free speech, it's just incredibly disrespectful
2. burning a qur'an is separating the people from the word of God, while burning the flag is just burning a flag

and this one which i'll quote

"
i don't give one iota of a shit what anyone does with a qur'an

tell him that i think it's far worse to read the qur'an and use it as (false) justification for terrorism than i do when a kafir or a christian burns one without reading it. their judgement will be with god, not me"

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 11:26 AM
that guy owned sonna

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 11:33 AM
1. burning the Qur'an is still protected free speech, it's just incredibly disrespectful

And burning the US flag ISNT?????


2. burning a qur'an is separating the people from the word of God, while burning the flag is just burning a flag

1.The Koran is not the word of God.

2. I am not even going to try and point out what is wrong here. If you cant figure it out, you're even more stupid than I realised.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 11:34 AM
kafir or a christian burns one without reading it. their judgement will be with god, not me"

"kafir" huh? Infidel? Unbeliever?

Yeah that's tolerance....:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 11:36 AM
tolerance that's very tolerant. i'm sonnabend and i care about tolerance ;)

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 11:38 AM
tolerance that's very tolerant. i'm sonnabend and i care about tolerance

We put up with you, dont we?

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 11:41 AM
And burning the US flag ISNT?????

adding question marks to an additional sentence clause that you YOURSELF added?????[/quote]




1.The Koran is not the word of God.

lol how do you know?


2. I am not even going to try and point out what is wrong here. If you cant figure it out, you're even more stupid than I realised.

the guy seems to think flags carry less and only symbolic significance while religious texts deal with a much more meaningful signifier

one is a symbol of a nation, one is a symbol of Truth and a person's relationship with God

maybe you are not religious yourself but people who are believers tend to hold their relationship with God stronger than that of nationalism. ask christians here which would offend them more: burning a bible or burning a flag.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 11:42 AM
We put up with you, dont we?

not very well

wilbur
09-23-2010, 11:43 AM
And burning the US flag ISNT?????


It doesnt look like he expressed an opinion on flag burning, one way or another. I hope you arent presuming to know the contents of this person's mind based on one sentence paraphrased through a third party, over the internet... that would be pretty stupid.



1.The Koran is not the word of God.


Agreed, but he certainly believes it is. Would you reply with such a rejoinder if a Christian said the same thing about burning the Bible? Doubt it. In any case, humans don't posses any book which could be called the word of God, period.

wilbur
09-23-2010, 11:46 AM
"kafir" huh? Infidel? Unbeliever?

Yeah that's tolerance....:rolleyes:

Gentile, huh? Pagan, huh? Unbeliever? Yea, that's tolerance.... :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
09-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Trust me, I of all people don't ignore the disproportionate amount of these sorts of atrocities coming from Islamic culture. But your generalizations about all Muslims are about as hysterical and non-sensical as anti-jew Nazi propaganda.

I'm sure your reply will be a flurry of more cherry picked news articles about terrorist attacks by Muslims - but that will only prove to us that you build your opinions by deliberate confirmation bias.

Fact of the matter is, its a *tiny* subset of all Muslims in the world who would actually want to blow themselves or anyone else up or care enough to issue death threats against people who desecrate the Quran.

Rarely we agree, but bravo.

FlaGator
09-23-2010, 12:04 PM
It doesnt look like he expressed an opinion on flag burning, one way or another. I hope you arent presuming to know the contents of this person's mind based on one sentence paraphrased through a third party, over the internet... that would be pretty stupid.



Agreed, but he certainly believes it is. Would you reply with such a rejoinder if a Christian said the same thing about burning the Bible? Doubt it. In any case, humans don't posses any book which could be called the word of God, period.

And you would be able to prove this?

wilbur
09-23-2010, 12:16 PM
And you would be able to prove this?

One can certainly show it to be extremely improbable that any of our holy books were the products of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God.

One such argument against the Bible is its ambiguity - presuming that the Christian God wants us all to be saved, its extremely unlikely that He would communicate the means of salvation to us so ambigiously. See the sola fide vs faith/works debate for one signal of ambiguity (there are other examples too). Both beliefs can be extrapolated from the text by reasonable, and otherwise logical people. Therefore the Bible is ambigious in its message of salvation. Therefore it wasnt written/inspired by God.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 12:21 PM
wilber argues against a specific image of god he heard about in sunday school which is an all powerful wizard in the clouds and believes he's advanced because he's renounced this childish notion of God

wilbur
09-23-2010, 12:23 PM
wilber argues against a specific image of god he heard about in sunday school which is an all powerful wizard in the clouds and believes he's advanced because he's renounced this childish notion of God

No, I'm arguing against the God of classical theism.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 12:37 PM
The God of the 11th century perhaps

marv
09-23-2010, 12:43 PM
All gods are subject to interpretation.
All religions are subject to interpretation.
All "holy books" are subject to interpretation.

It's the interpretation that makes the difference.

FlaGator
09-23-2010, 12:56 PM
One can certainly show it to be extremely improbable that any of our holy books were the products of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God.

One such argument against the Bible is its ambiguity - presuming that the Christian God wants us all to be saved, its extremely unlikely that He would communicate the means of salvation to us so ambigiously. See the sola fide vs faith/works debate for one signal of ambiguity (there are other examples too). Both beliefs can be extrapolated from the text by reasonable, and otherwise logical people. Therefore the Bible is ambigious in its message of salvation. Therefore it wasnt written/inspired by God.

But you made and absolute statement concerning the existence of any book containing God's word but have no absolute proof to vindicate that statement. You stated as an absolute truth that


In any case, humans don't posses any book which could be called the word of God, period.

but you have no proof to validate that statement.

To defend you statement you offer disputeable issues that, because they can be disputed, do not lend credence to your statement. For example, you call the statement of Salvation ambiguous but it is not. Believe that Christ was who He said he was and did what He did to redeem you and you are saved. What is ambiguous about that? Anything else is a misinterpretaton by man. The whole works issue shows that you don't understand. If you are saved then you will desire to do good works. You don't have to do them but you will because you love Jesus. If you have no desire to do good then you really don't love and believe Christ.

There is a difference to believe in Christ and to believe Him. Satan believes in Christ, but he doesn't believe him.

FlaGator
09-23-2010, 12:58 PM
All gods are subject to interpretation.
All religions are subject to interpretation.
All "holy books" are subject to interpretation.

It's the interpretation that makes the difference.

But misinterpretion of a Holy Book does not negate the existence of God. Does misinterpretation of the Constitution negate the existence of it's authors?

FlaGator
09-23-2010, 12:59 PM
No, I'm arguing against the God of classical theism.


BTW, you can't ignore Rock anymore. He's a mod and to my knowledge the ignore list doesn't work for mods.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 01:38 PM
But misinterpretion of a Holy Book does not negate the existence of God. Does misinterpretation of the Constitution negate the existence of it's authors?

who do you suppose wrote the constitution again?

hampshirebrit
09-23-2010, 02:01 PM
not very well

LOL :D This is true.

There is a reason for that, though. Dude, lighten up a bit, ffs, really. Post some lounge threads, non political. You'll still get slapped around a bit, until people figure you're not always out to make a point.

Now, back to the atheists are a joke thread.

Wei Wu Wei
09-23-2010, 02:06 PM
Sonnabend is right.

A basic tenant of Islam is that the World belongs to Allah, aka al-Ilah - the ancient Arab moon god. Check http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm

Why would anyone go to www.bible.ca to learn about islam?

fettpett
09-23-2010, 02:15 PM
with all the relgious topics lately we should have a heading for just religious topics

noonwitch
09-23-2010, 02:19 PM
Why would anyone go to www.bible.ca to learn about islam?



You could try www.chick.com

At least there are entertaining religious tracts to explain the evils of Islam. There's one called "Allah had no son" and one called "The Skylighter". There's another one about people kidnapping american girls for sheiks, but I forgot the title.


The best tracts there, however, are the anti-Halloween ones. Someone left the one called "The Trick" in my mailbox once when I lived in Detroit, but most of my experience with religious tracts comes from my waitressing days in Grand Rapids. Dutch calvinists are cheap and religious. They thought a quarter and a tract was a good tip.

wilbur
09-23-2010, 02:19 PM
The God of the 11th century perhaps

The god of the bronze age, actually - which is the God most of the people in the world believe in... frightening, isnt it?

nightflight
09-23-2010, 02:39 PM
There is also a logic and mathematical problem with the concept of infinite time. If time were infinite then there would be a infinite number of moments between now and some point in the past. You would never be able to reach the present from the past. In short with infinite time you can never get to now and since now exists for you and I time must have a beginning otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.

Doesn't the same apply to God? At some point God creates the universe, but what was in the mind of God before that? And since God is eternal doesn't the infinite regress apply to him also?

wilbur
09-23-2010, 02:42 PM
But you made and absolute statement concerning the existence of any book containing God's word but have no absolute proof to vindicate that statement. You stated as an absolute truth that


Well, while technically imprecise (if we want to be all pedantic about it), I am still perfectly happy to say it, until such time someone actually produces a book whose origin is best explained by the theory "God did it", rather than the theory "Man did it".

To my knowledge, no such book exists. It certainly aint the Torah, the Quran, or the NT...



but you have no proof to validate that statement.


Don't actually need it. But if the wording of the statement still bothers you, we can re-word it like this:

"There is no good evidence to suggest that any book on Earth was written or inspired by a perfect God".

The burden of proof is upon anybody who wants to say their religious text is written/inspired by God.




To defend you statement you offer disputeable issues that, because they can be disputed, do not lend credence to your statement. For example, you call the statement of Salvation ambiguous but it is not. Believe that Christ was who He said he was and did what He did to redeem you and you are saved.

I'm not talking about whether the Bible is ambiguous about the belief that Jesus came back to save us. This argument was that the means of salvation is ambiguous. Means of salvation being what is required of believers in order to be saved.

See the thousands of schisms in the church as evidence that the means is unclear.



What is ambiguous about that?


Not much, but it missed the crucial point.



Anything else is a misinterpretaton by man. The whole works issue shows that you don't understand. If you are saved then you will desire to do good works. You don't have to do them but you will because you love Jesus. If you have no desire to do good then you really don't love and believe Christ.


Right, but at least a billion other Christians disagree with this, and they have good, fleshed out and reasonable arguments for their particular exegesis. Which strongly suggests that the text is ambiguous as to the means of salvation. Reasonable people, working in earnest, can (and will) come to vastly different interpretations of the text, on this particular point - and there is no obvious criteria with which to settle the disputes. That is ambiguity.



There is a difference to believe in Christ and to believe Him. Satan believes in Christ, but he doesn't believe him.

OK.

wilbur
09-23-2010, 02:50 PM
But misinterpretion of a Holy Book does not negate the existence of God. Does misinterpretation of the Constitution negate the existence of it's authors?

You're right that the extreme variation with which reasonable, honest people can and do "misinterpret" their religious texts is not evidence against the existence of God. Its evidence against the claim that a perfect God wrote or inspired those texts.

So the constitution is a bad metaphor - its not surprising that its interpretations vary so much, because it was written by imperfect human beings.

hampshirebrit
09-23-2010, 02:57 PM
You could try www.chick.com

At least there are entertaining religious tracts to explain the evils of Islam. There's one called "Allah had no son" and one called "The Skylighter". There's another one about people kidnapping american girls for sheiks, but I forgot the title.


The best tracts there, however, are the anti-Halloween ones. Someone left the one called "The Trick" in my mailbox once when I lived in Detroit, but most of my experience with religious tracts comes from my waitressing days in Grand Rapids. Dutch calvinists are cheap and religious. They thought a quarter and a tract was a good tip.

There is some seriously LOL funny shit at chick.com. Thanks for posting the link. It's really cheered my up today.