The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

Roger that.

Not necessarily true. It seems to me that Zeno made the same error...

But an infinite period may simply have no beginning (i.e. it is a regression), which is precisely what we've been pondering.

Reaching the end of something doesn't make sense outside of a perspective within time. Getting to the end of a process is defined in terms of a time at which the process is complete. I am at the end of the process if I am at time t and the process had extension only until a time less than t. Since between any point in the past and any point in the present is a finite amount of time, the infinite amount of time that had to be "traversed" must have been traversed prior to that point. Hence, for all points in time the process of traversing that infinite time is a completed process. In other words the process takes no time at all. Which seems absurd, unless we discard the idea that we should regard the infinite amount of time as being traversed in the first place. Time just is.

I am doubting that we are going to make a whole lot of progress against one another here...

In this case it seems it would be. You are right, one can argue that there are an infinite number of instants between any 2 points, however, the issue is a lack of a beginning.

Well, either way, it does not matter. The issue is just the amount of time.

I don't think we are going to make a lot of progress. The nullification of something being traversed though seems to removed the tensed fact "has happened", which is a very big thing to remove.

I think you'd really do a better job arguing that the universe just is than that time just is. A universe without a cause, or even a transcendent cause that couldn't rightfully be called a god would still be a better support for atheism than an infinite past.

and just for good measure:

slowmutant keeps on accusing me of having the inability to think abstractly enough to comprehend religion...but looking at the actual stances, slowmutant shows more of a lacking in the ability to think abstractly.


this is clearly illustrated by abortion and gay marriage. two issues that have many, many abstractions but are addressed in black and white in the typical non-abstract very plain christian viewpoint. homosexuality is wrong and abortion is murder.

i see abortion more as an issue of public health and don't view the fetus as a child but rather as the abstract existence that it is...a developing potential for life. the dangers of a third trimester abortion make it that it should be strongly advised against and maybe illegal. though i know it's currently illegal, i'm not sure if it "should" be illegal...but i'm leaning on the side that it should. life at conception, however, is a very base and not very abstract viewpoint. it's a very emotionally charged one...but lacking any abstraction and subtleties that slowmutant claims are needed to believe in a deity.

homosexuality is another one and even worse because this is simply not being able to understand the concept of people being different from each other. the attachment to one's own sexuality and sexual preferences is so strong that one can't even think abstractly enough to take into consideration someone else's preferences and simply dismissing it as perverse, harmful, and wrong. however, if one views it from the outside and can think abstractly enough to consider the other person and consider the act, the people, and the consequences; one would clearly see there is nothing wrong with homosexuality other than being hated by a patriarchal system of the boogie man.

Homosexuality and abortion aren't black and white issues if you ask me. Obviously they are both very complesx issues.

You ruled out Heterosexuality in the complexity issues here.

But at least pro-life advocates have a reason (disagree with it as I may) for their stance - they think abortion is murder. Homophobes really have not reasoning on their side, so to be honest I respect it even less.

That is certainly your prerogative.

I have never been met by a non-Biblical reason to oppose homosexuality. It's always just statements with no backing, like "it's gross" or "it's wrong" or "it's against nature."

I'm not about to tell you how you should feel.

Yeah, you think that because your life revolves around religion. Every single one of your sentences mentions God or has some kind of reference to the bible.

No offense, but people like you annoy me. Non-Christians don't want to hear this mumbo-jumbo just like Christians don't want to always hear non-Christians talk about how they DON'T believe in a God.

I wasn't talking about you, you seem rather level-headed. I was talking about the religious right and people who attempt to impose their faith and prejudiced views on the public.

This is true. The issue has been so overblown and tired that we're all mutually sick of each other. I'm sick of being told I'm going to hell for some BS reason by evangelists and I'm sick of being told that I'm deluded and weak-minded by some fifteen-year-old atheist who claims to hold all the answers.

Needless to say, no one has all the answers.

Truer words have never been spoken. The only absolute truth I can give you is that if anyone claims to hold absolute truth they're full of crap.

though i've missed a few pages...i don't think the pagans/wiccans came in here all hot and bothered, did they?

they're wrong too, ya know.

why'd you capitalize god?