The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

I'd tend to disagree as I think that this isn't a flawed perspective at all.

I don't see how you have trouble getting "traversed", traversed is common sense.

Lets say you are at point A, to be at point A, all of the points before A must have already occurred. There is an infinite number of points before A that must have occurred. Therefore, we cannot be at A. Now, are you denying that an infinite number of events must have occurred? You can't, but can you explain how an infinite number of events have occurred?

twoshots, this isn't a matter of weirdness, this is a matter of an impossibility. Now, you can say that the distance between point A and B is finite, but both have an infinite period of time that must have been travelled before-hand.

So your argument is:
1) All points prior to any point in time must have occurred
2) There are an infinite number of points prior to any point in time
3) Ergo, absurdity
But whatever does occurred mean? I don't see any way of formulating that that won't have the same form as my dimensional analogy; there's no difference between a point occurring before and a point preceding in time. Time doesn't occur, events occur at a time. Events are thus mapped onto the time axis, and they all "occur" because they have an associated time with them. Time is an essentially mathematical idea, and the math is quite consistent.

No, it really isn't an ad hominem, nor does it demonstrate an absurd degree of self-confidence. Hell, you aren't even like twoshots who attempts to address my metaphysics. You just dismissed the issue.

Let's break it down.

1) You say A is incorrect
2) I believe that you have not proven that A is incorrect
3) You hold yourself to a rationalist epistemology
4) Either 2 or 3 are false or your mind is flawed
5) Because 2 or 3 are correct, your mind is flawed

Your statement was not an argument against A though but rather an assertion, so I could not be dismissing an argument with an insult, which means that I could not be engaging in an ad hominem, as ad hominems are dismissals of reason with insults.

Now, let's just continue down the lines of your mind being flawed.

1) You have the correct information as to what an ad hominem is
2) You have implicitly agreed with this information
3) Properly functioning minds will work within the premises they have accepted
4) You misuse the term ad hominem
5) Based upon 1-4, you cannot have a properly functioning mind.


No, you are just an idiot with a flawed mind. My position is not "if a person is wrong, then their mind is flawed", my position was very specific. Your mind is flawed because you have personally shown signs of a flawed mind.


I am not a theist. I simply hate people with bad arguments, and bad understandings, dishonest natures, and certainly idiots. You seem to fit in all 4 categories.


No, I really do not. Especially since I am an atheist. I hold you to be flawed, you, like I have stated, have a flawed mind. You keep on inferring incorrect premises.

I would describe it as the following:

1) At any point, there can be points prior to and after that point.
2) If the past is infinite, then the points prior to a given point must be infinite
3) If the points prior to a given point are infinite, then an infinite amount of time must have passed.
4) An infinite amount of time can never pass based upon the nature of infinite
5) Ergo, an infinite past is absurd.

Occurred is a tensed fact, it is related to the relation of the current time to the past. Time occurs because events occur, and time is a relational quality between events(if there were no events at a given point in time, how could we argue that time existed?). So, infinite time, is in essence infinite events. Now, the issue is that for infinite events to occur, it would take an infinite period of time, an infinite period of time, is a period of time without end as infinity does not end, therefore an infinite number of events cannot occur. The issue is not a mathematical line, but tensed facts I'd say, and I would consider tensed facts to be properly basic to the point where they could be assumed.

It is not the atheistic view that is being attacked- it is a specific atheist who is using poor arguments and is arrogant with his epistemology.

from what i've seen, there's a different set of requirements from both sides. a simple test should suffice....we'll build two pyres for the sacrificial lamb and put both up. put the uses of science to ignite the sacrifice of one and god to ignite the other.


it worked in the bible, right?

I'm not promoting the burning of anyone, or forcing others to adopt my beliefs. I'm just calling out flimsy arguments as I see them. Besides, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Being an atheist is one thing. Being an atheist and evangelizing without understanding the points you're trying to make, is quite another.

not even burning a sacrificial sheep? pleaaaaaaaase, i'm in the mood for greek.

but....what's absurd about asking for a provable act? did god develop from being this interventionist and very demonstrative thing into a spectator from abroad who can't even light a little fire?

sounds like a plothole to me. well, that and the 20 or so years between the temple and jesus being crucified. and that's important information afterall, what better lessons to learn than those from jesus going through puberty?

delete

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 20 Aug 2008, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Learning to hide porn and drugs from your parents is not a trait that retains the same value from then to the modern era. Now we have computers that do things faster for one, and bigger rooms too. Although, this could make for some interesting parables and aphorisms.

jesus tripping on shrooms would have been a great book for the bible. it'd be a story right up there with the ten commandments (another event inspired by a shrooms trip).

Well, if the bible is to teach us a lesson, then that lesson should very well be that living like a bum and taking drugs are the ways to be close to God.

don't forget eating bugs and stoning people to death.

Who can forget the stonings?!?

the stoned.

I have another problem with the cosmological argument after thinking about it for a few hours. But since I am stupid and ignorant, I must be wrong. However I will set out why the cosmological argument does not prove the existence of any god.

If god created the universe and everything in it, god must necessarily be a temporal/physical being and a part of that universe. However if the universe did not exist before god created it, then how can god have existed in the first place? AG argued that god is not temporal, not subject to time. This would imply that god also occupies no space since every object in the universe is subject to time. If god is non-temporal and has no physical form, how does he influence the world? If he is temporal and physical, why can we not have evidence to prove it? Is god hiding from us?

The only solution I can think of to this problem is that god is everything. God is the universe. And the universe created itself.

If god is a First cause, how, physically did he create the universe? How did he have an effect on the temporal/physical world if he is not apart of that world? One would have to be a part of the universe to move a planet. One could not affect the universe if one was not existent in that universe.

I have two suggestion as to why God does not seem to have a physical form any longer. Either he never existed, he did exist but ceased to be a physical entity in our universe (died) or he exists but has absolutely no physical influence on the universe and thus is irrelevant to those of us who live in the universe and are subject to time. God could be an extra-temporal entity but then he would not exist in our universe and would have no way of influencing it.

I'm assuming that god is a rational creature and cannot become temporal or non-temporal as he pleases. Either he is subject to time or he isn't.

I am once again amused at the anger directed at me for my "dishonesty" and stupidity. If I am really stupid, why would anyone be angry with me? Are you angry with ret*d people? Are you angry with the mentally ill? The only reason that I can think for such anger is that I do not share your illogical assumptions. That is the only, possible explanation for your anger.

I am not an atheist. I do not hold atheistic views. I have explained this so clearly that even a ret*d person could understand my reasoning. I am not being dishonest in my opinion.

If you are an atheist, you are also in possession of an unjustified belief. You have also contradicted yourself by claiming the validity of the cosmological argument. You have shown yourself to hold two contradictory ideas at once.

Disbelief in god is not compatible with advocating the cosmological argument. If you believe that argument is true, the why are you an atheist?