The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, there are no evidence nor tests made about this hypothesis, so it seems to be all conjecture, it gives the explanation of what caused the big bang, I don't know much about it, just something vague, which it seems it expands the string theory to 11 dimensions.

According to this, our universe might have being created when two universes, or branes in this case, collided with each other, creating a new universe, the current one, this gives the idea that we live in a multiverse and that other universes existed before this one, before the big bang.

How can one be a "devout" atheist? Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a lack of belief.

I have no emotional investment in my thoughts. My emotions and thoughts are too separate systems and I don't often confuse them unlike some people who shall not be named.

Couldn't you at least quote me? But, that isn't a fallacious argument because it is THEIR term. It isn't a term you invented. Not only that, but an appeal to expert knowledge is hardly fallacious. It isn't an argument of absolute proof, but it certainly looks bad if you use terms unlike others of the same profession, in fact, even if you had different views than the rest of the profession, it would be wiser to just stick to the mainstream and present yourself differently if you were to be honest.


It is entirely relevant, because if the authorities define proper use of a term, then using it differently than those authorities becomes more of a violation of the term, and if the term is negative then it should not be used.


Insanity has nothing to do with rationality, it has everything to do with psychological health. You are making epistemology into psychology and thus forcing a psychological reduction upon everybody. Such a redefinition of a term with a negative connotation is dishonest at best.

The belief that you are stupid because you do not accept my arguments is plenty sane if you look at the facts. The belief in god is quite sane if you don't have a very good answer to the cosmological argument, you keep on asserting that an infinite number of things is logical despite the fact that it is pretty sketchy to consider, because an infinite period of time cannot pass because of the fact that it is infinite. Your very use of the term is dishonest as hell, and I think everyone of any sense knows that already.


BECAUSE IT ISN'T BLOODY POSSIBLE. An infinite number of things cannot have happened, because infinite time is infintely long.

Umm... to a specific object? There is obviously a present. The present is changing, but the present cannot not exist.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 19 Aug 2008, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It wasn't insults or nonsense. I am genuinely confused at this bizarre inconsistency from you. Do you accept the statements you laughed at in the innermost quote or not? I can't deal with your ideas if it isn't clear what the hell they are.

AG has already dealt with why an infinite series of events is illogical. I don't care what you consider anything to be, your beliefs do not define reality because you are insane.

Atheism is an assertion of an absence as well. So, a devout atheist can exist.

Right.... because that last part is really so unemotional. Not only that, but honestly... emotions and thoughts are never separate systems in functioning human beings. Aspies like to think that they are all logic, and they have worse emotions than most, but they can't be pure logic. The people who don't have emotions impact their thinking are the ones who cannot make basic decisions or come to basic conclusions.

In modern usage, agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is an assertion in the non-existence of deities. I like to apply usually religious terms (such as evangelical or missionary) to atheists when there is sufficient parallel in mindset, attitude, and action.


BS. Please refrain from blatant lies in this debate.

Clearly there is no point continuing this discussion as some people have decided that I am in fact lying. That is your choice to assume but it makes any further input from me useless.

The Bwa Ha Ha thing was an ironic attempt to parody the rather pathetic attempt by AG to imply that my ideas are hilarious.

Infinity is a logical possibility both in maths (British English) and in reality.

The cosmological argument is proof of nothing. Even if I accept that something started the big bang.

Why must this be the Christian god? Where does the Bible come from? Why is there a "church"? Why are there multiple religions, some of which are atheist like Jainism and Theravada Buddhism?



The only emotion I am now feeling is intense amusement.

Umm... there was very little point to continue in the first place, as you were already undermining your input with your ungodly levels of arrogance and lack of self-examination or openness about your dogmatic position.


Imply? They were!

Well, it is a logical possibility in math, but not in time sequences.


Umm.... right. I think it ends up proving that there is some form of divine being, and I think that most people recognize that.


Look, if you've accepted the existence of at least one god, then the rest becomes comparative theology, which is more complicated and allows for bigger debates.


Right.

OK, thank you for explaining your poor attempt at humor.


So after you fail to refute it, you simply reject it out of hand?


This is all in the field of apologetics, which I would rather not get into as that would make the discussion even longer on a thread that should have died over twenty pages ago.


I feel somewhat tired. And I am feeling curiosity because my roommate started to move in today, but then just kind of vanished. I don't believe that you feel only amusement on this thread, as your posts seem to indicate a degree of anger or frustration. Especially since, if you derived amusement from this discussion, you would not choose to discontinue participation in it.

Yes, cosmology doesn't proof anything about this, and if that is unable to be explained, then ideas are proposed and some asumed I suppose.


The answer for that, in my point of view, is this: (I don't know) but that's me.

I don't understand this.

Is considering religious belief insane arrogance?

What does self-examination mean?

I'm also confused about what "self" means.

I don't understand why not believing in a deity of any sort is dogmatic. I thought it was dogma to believe something without reason. I have no reason to believe in any god so how can this be dogma?

Lack of belief is not a positive belief. I don't believe in many things. The only thing I believe is the existence of other minds. Everything else is subject to experience.

i thought devout was kind of an odd choice in words but i can see it too. my presence on the board is essentially that of an evangelical atheist.

Right, well, I think I tend to generally have more respect for your arguments and ideas.

that won't last.

Consult a book.


Generally, it is a sign thereof.

Consult a book.

Consult a book.


Because of the way you hold to it. Atheism isn't necessarily dogmatic, but certain followers take their stances too rigidly, and without showing much attempt at intellectual honesty.

The issue is that you could be argued to have a positive belief, as you have argued that believing in a deity is insane. This either asserts a positive belief in the non-existence of god, or a positive belief in the psychological necessity of your epistemology or some such. Either way, it reveals a positive belief on your part, and one very arrogantly held to.

Anyway, I thought you were leaving.

Maybe not, but I am not that concerned. I don't usually care very much about these threads anyway, nor do I have problems with evangelicals, only with evangelical arrogance and their attempts at absolute proofs.