Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The worst thing about religion

Page 20 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 6:02 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
What is an intuitive understanding? Objective morality? Only humans are moral and we have invented that. Are animals moral?

Umm... an understanding based upon that little thing described as intuition. Most people have intuitive understandings of certain things. Damned if I know if animals are moral, I think most people assign morality to human beings due to the accepted phenomenal level of our existence.
Quote:
The cosmological argument is not an argument and cannot be disproved. I cannot disprove the existence of god but this is not sufficient reason to believe in god.

How isn't it an argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That seems plenty like an argument to me, and the first cause has attributes traditionally assigned to God given to it.


What caused the First Cause then? How can an effect (God) not have a cause?

Umm.... HA HA HA HA!! Nothing caused the first cause, that is why it is the first cause, it is defined as uncaused. God is not an effect, he is the first cause.


How can something be "uncaused"?



benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 6:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
What is an intuitive understanding? Objective morality? Only humans are moral and we have invented that. Are animals moral?

Umm... an understanding based upon that little thing described as intuition. Most people have intuitive understandings of certain things. Damned if I know if animals are moral, I think most people assign morality to human beings due to the accepted phenomenal level of our existence.
Quote:
The cosmological argument is not an argument and cannot be disproved. I cannot disprove the existence of god but this is not sufficient reason to believe in god.

How isn't it an argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That seems plenty like an argument to me, and the first cause has attributes traditionally assigned to God given to it.


What caused the First Cause then? How can an effect (God) not have a cause?

Umm.... HA HA HA HA!! Nothing caused the first cause, that is why it is the first cause, it is defined as uncaused. God is not an effect, he is the first cause.


now your talking complete s**t. You and your tribe are complete hypocrites.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:07 pm

corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
How isn't it an argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That seems plenty like an argument to me, and the first cause has attributes traditionally assigned to God given to it.


What caused the First Cause then? How can an effect (God) not have a cause?

Umm.... HA HA HA HA!! Nothing caused the first cause, that is why it is the first cause, it is defined as uncaused. God is not an effect, he is the first cause.


How can something be "uncaused"?

Unless you are planning on arguing against premise 3 of the argument presented, you are left with some serious problems here. You are essentially claiming the necessity of an infinite string of finite things causing one another back infinitely.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:08 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
How isn't it an argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That seems plenty like an argument to me, and the first cause has attributes traditionally assigned to God given to it.


What caused the First Cause then? How can an effect (God) not have a cause?

Umm.... HA HA HA HA!! Nothing caused the first cause, that is why it is the first cause, it is defined as uncaused. God is not an effect, he is the first cause.


now your talking complete sh**. You and your tribe are complete hypocrites.

Come now, AG is an atheist like yourself. He just dislikes bad arguments, so he's playing devil's advocate a bit. And the cosmological argument is valid unless you dispute on of its premises, which no one on this thread has yet done.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 6:12 pm

Orwell wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
How isn't it an argument?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That seems plenty like an argument to me, and the first cause has attributes traditionally assigned to God given to it.


What caused the First Cause then? How can an effect (God) not have a cause?

Umm.... HA HA HA HA!! Nothing caused the first cause, that is why it is the first cause, it is defined as uncaused. God is not an effect, he is the first cause.


How can something be "uncaused"?

Unless you are planning on arguing against premise 3 of the argument presented, you are left with some serious problems here. You are essentially claiming the necessity of an infinite string of finite things causing one another back infinitely.


The universe is spatially infinite, yes?

Why is an infinite series of causation so strange?

The big bang singularity created our universe and we do not know what caused this. Really it is irrelevant what caused it since time started when it happened.

To say that god exists because we cannot explain the origin of our universe is unjustified speculation. We simply do not know.

Even if I accepted this idea as valid. This proves nothing about Christianity or a personal god or the dogma of religion.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:20 pm

corroonb wrote:
"Stupid bastard" is an ad hominem attack. You have repeatedly used fallacies in supposedly rational argument.

Nope, it is a straight up insult. I have already established that there is a distinction between ad hominems and insults.

Quote:
Theology is a load of rubbish. Study of religious texts has no more epistemological worth than the study of literature.

And the study of literature has some epistemic value as well. Albert Camus was an author after all, and a number of important philosophical ideas have been written in the form of some sort of play.

Quote:
I have read Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Spinoza and so on. I have read Plato and Aristotle in the original Greek.

Interesting, you don't sound like it. Either that, or that you haven't read very much of these individuals or very substantive ideas by these individuals.

Quote:
Please explain what intuitive understanding means? It sounds like an oxymoron.

Do I really *have to* explain this?? I mean... like, I can't see how you aren't playing dumb here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy) I mean, hell, the article claims that intuition was an idea developed by Kant for crying out loud.

Quote:
You have repeatedly characterised me as being stupid or ignorant and yourself as being intelligent and wise. This is ad hominem and is a contemptible ploy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I already explained how it wasn't an ad hominem. You can try to say that I was using these things as substantive arguments against your positions, however, I have generally taken care to apply these personally, irrespective of position, or to apply these to the character of your arguments. How should I even be ashamed of myself, you really do seem to me, to be a stupid bastard. I really don't feel much shame for admitting it, perhaps you just aren't a good arguer, perhaps you aren't at your prime, perhaps we just are having communication problems, but I have seen better, fuller developments of an atheistic position than yours.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:21 pm

corroonb wrote:
The universe is spatially infinite, yes?

Why is an infinite series of causation so strange?

The big bang singularity created our universe and we do not know what caused this. Really it is irrelevant what caused it since time started when it happened.

To say that god exists because we cannot explain the origin of our universe is unjustified speculation. We simply do not know.

Even if I accepted this idea as valid. This proves nothing about Christianity or a personal god or the dogma of religion.

OK, now you're doing better. No, the cosmological argument does not prove Christianity, it simply attempts to establish that a higher power is necessary for reality to make sense. Apologetics goes on to attempt to say that Christianity has the best description of this higher power, though that's a whole 'nother can of worms that would make this stretch out farther than anyone here should want. You say that the big bang created the universe, but do not know what caused it. You do, however, acknowledge that it was caused. The regress argument applies just as well to the Big Bang as to any other arbitrary event in the chain of causation, and the cosmological argument still holds. And I'm not sure if the universe is considered to be spatially infinite- it is currently expanding, yes? That would seem to imply it to be finite. Now, I am not well-versed in theoretical physics, but I have read that physicists claim that if you were to travel a great enough distance in the universe, you would eventually come back to where you started- similar to traveling on a globe. If this is the case, the universe certainly would not seem to be spatially infinite.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:21 pm

corroonb wrote:
How can something be "uncaused"?

God is usually presented as being outside of temporal relations, if a being is outside of temporal relations, then it can be uncaused, while not leading to any infinite regress.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 6:24 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
"Stupid bastard" is an ad hominem attack. You have repeatedly used fallacies in supposedly rational argument.

Nope, it is a straight up insult. I have already established that there is a distinction between ad hominems and insults.

Quote:
Theology is a load of rubbish. Study of religious texts has no more epistemological worth than the study of literature.

And the study of literature has some epistemic value as well. Albert Camus was an author after all, and a number of important philosophical ideas have been written in the form of some sort of play.

Quote:
I have read Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Spinoza and so on. I have read Plato and Aristotle in the original Greek.

Interesting, you don't sound like it. Either that, or that you haven't read very much of these individuals or very substantive ideas by these individuals.

Quote:
Please explain what intuitive understanding means? It sounds like an oxymoron.

Do I really *have to* explain this?? I mean... like, I can't see how you aren't playing dumb here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy) I mean, hell, the article claims that intuition was an idea developed by Kant for crying out loud.

Quote:
You have repeatedly characterised me as being stupid or ignorant and yourself as being intelligent and wise. This is ad hominem and is a contemptible ploy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I already explained how it wasn't an ad hominem. You can try to say that I was using these things as substantive arguments against your positions, however, I have generally taken care to apply these personally, irrespective of position, or to apply these to the character of your arguments. How should I even be ashamed of myself, you really do seem to me, to be a stupid bastard. I really don't feel much shame for admitting it, perhaps you just aren't a good arguer, perhaps you aren't at your prime, perhaps we just are having communication problems, but I have seen better, fuller developments of an atheistic position than yours.


I have to laugh at those who inject emotion into rational discourse. It is very sad.

Why if I am so disabled or stupid would it anger you?

I'm asking what you think intuition is. Did you write an article on wikipedia?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:26 pm

corroonb wrote:
What philosophy have you read then, o master of the written word?

I have read Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Spinoza and so on. I have read Plato and Aristotle in the original Greek.

My library's bigger than yours! :lol: :roll:


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

19 Aug 2008, 6:27 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
see: the asch conformity experiment and the milgram experiment

I know about both of those.
Quote:
just because someone conforms to the masses or to authority doesn't make it correct.

The issue is absolute proof as opposed to probabilistic proof. Popularity and authority are not means of absolutely proving something, and few people are very concerned with absolute proofs either, but rather they are usually taken as means of pointing to something likely true. Now, I'll be honest, they aren't a major part of my epistemology either, but a person can rationally use them as part of a valid epistemology.


popularity and authority are not means of any proof unless you're discussing social demographics and i don't think any such points have been disputed there. many people believe that simply being exposed to cold will make you sick. the majority of people are simply ignorant on such a matter.

similarly, many people are ignorant on the subject of deities...that's what happens when you put someone in a box at a young age and ingrain in them that it's beyond question. most people don't even dare to venture outside the box (afterall, you're doomed to eternal suck in almost every religion if you do). so i fail to see how a call to popularity and authority is relevant in this discussion. when it's established, essentially at birth, that a god is assumed and is present, it's hard to break that mindset and approach the first steps of testing: observing.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:29 pm

corroonb wrote:
The universe is spatially infinite, yes?

Why is an infinite series of causation so strange?

An infinite series of causation is so strange because then we have an infinite series of events before the present, how can that be possible? If it were so, then how could we get to the current time.

Quote:
The big bang singularity created our universe and we do not know what caused this. Really it is irrelevant what caused it since time started when it happened.

And what was before the big-bang? How can it come from nothing?

Quote:
To say that god exists because we cannot explain the origin of our universe is unjustified speculation. We simply do not know.

Unjustified, it is arguably so, however, the issue is that nothing can be uncaused, and an infinite period of time before now is impossible to progress past.
Quote:
Even if I accepted this idea as valid. This proves nothing about Christianity or a personal god or the dogma of religion.

It proves that a god exists though, which means that the specific natures of this god are up for debate.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 6:30 pm

Orwell wrote:
corroonb wrote:
The universe is spatially infinite, yes?

Why is an infinite series of causation so strange?

The big bang singularity created our universe and we do not know what caused this. Really it is irrelevant what caused it since time started when it happened.

To say that god exists because we cannot explain the origin of our universe is unjustified speculation. We simply do not know.

Even if I accepted this idea as valid. This proves nothing about Christianity or a personal god or the dogma of religion.

OK, now you're doing better. No, the cosmological argument does not prove Christianity, it simply attempts to establish that a higher power is necessary for reality to make sense. Apologetics goes on to attempt to say that Christianity has the best description of this higher power, though that's a whole 'nother can of worms that would make this stretch out farther than anyone here should want. You say that the big bang created the universe, but do not know what caused it. You do, however, acknowledge that it was caused. The regress argument applies just as well to the Big Bang as to any other arbitrary event in the chain of causation, and the cosmological argument still holds. And I'm not sure if the universe is considered to be spatially infinite- it is currently expanding, yes? That would seem to imply it to be finite. Now, I am not well-versed in theoretical physics, but I have read that physicists claim that if you were to travel a great enough distance in the universe, you would eventually come back to where you started- similar to traveling on a globe. If this is the case, the universe certainly would not seem to be spatially infinite.


Why could the Big Bang not be a one of a sequence of infinitely regressing singularities?

I am not a physicist so I do not know whether such a theory is plausible. I am by profession an IT specialist and classicist.

How can anything exist outside of time and still retain "existence"?

Isn't temporality a pre-requisite for existence?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:31 pm

skafather84 wrote:
that's what happens when you put someone in a box at a young age and ingrain in them that it's beyond question. most people don't even dare to venture outside the box (afterall, you're doomed to eternal suck in almost every religion if you do). so i fail to see how a call to popularity and authority is relevant in this discussion. when it's established, essentially at birth, that a god is assumed and is present, it's hard to break that mindset and approach the first steps of testing: observing.

If religion occurs only within the bounds of social conditioning from a society which believes in a deity to children who are made to believe in a deity, from whence did the society first obtain its belief in a deity? It is false to claim people only believe in God because they were raised to believe in God, because if that were true there is no explanation of how religious beliefs originated.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:31 pm

skafather84 wrote:
popularity and authority are not means of any proof unless you're discussing social demographics and i don't think any such points have been disputed there. many people believe that simply being exposed to cold will make you sick. the majority of people are simply ignorant on such a matter.

The issue is that I am not arguing proof, only inference.
Quote:
similarly, many people are ignorant on the subject of deities...that's what happens when you put someone in a box at a young age and ingrain in them that it's beyond question. most people don't even dare to venture outside the box (afterall, you're doomed to eternal suck in almost every religion if you do). so i fail to see how a call to popularity and authority is relevant in this discussion. when it's established, essentially at birth, that a god is assumed and is present, it's hard to break that mindset and approach the first steps of testing: observing.

Well, I am not denying the ability for people to reality test, however, it is hard to accept a purely personal verificationist epistemology either, there have to be some authorities to be trusted on some matters, otherwise our knowledge dwindles to almost nothing but a priorisms. After all, who has seen much empirical proof of Newtonian physics out of this crowd? How about electro-magnetics?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:34 pm

corroonb wrote:
I have to laugh at those who inject emotion into rational discourse. It is very sad.

Really? Then you have to laugh at yourself for you injected connotation-laden terms with poor denotative reason into this argument already for asserting that bad epistemology from your perspective, was the same as insanity.

Quote:
Why if I am so disabled or stupid would it anger you?

Stupid people irritate the crap out of me.
Quote:
I'm asking what you think intuition is. Did you write an article on wikipedia?

You didn't say that. You asked what intuition is. Frankly, I, once again, duck out of this, because I really do not want to explain to you what an intuition is. I mean, we can say that intuitions are patterns formed in human minds without high regard for social influences, or that which has been already written on the mind or something like that, but the concept is so simple, that asking me to define it for you is absurd.