Simple question. If there is one god, one savior, one teaching or what now.
Why is Christianity not the oldest religion. Its not the first. Hinduism dates back a few thousand years before Christians even existed. How can this be? There was a God before the God we all follow today? People worshiped anther deity?
If this is true which god or Gods are the fake ones. Made up? I think some have to be. If there are multiple religions why? Dont you think there should be one?
Again. Christianity is a belief system. But it doesn't make it true.
It's possible that there is "one god" whose properties distribute both objectively and subjectively, or impersonally and personally, to each person such that God is both one and many. Accordingly, a person who claims Jesus is the only way may very well be correct at the same time that someone who claims Allah is the only way is also correct, and at the same time someone who claims achieving Nirvana is the only way is correct, etc. In other words, it's possible that everyone worships the same impersonal God by worshipping their own personal gods. This can be logically modeled so long as there is a general archetype for a relationship between impersonal God and us that allows for topological variations in the expression of that relationship. |
|
|
|
Of course you're kidding, lol. This is all a big joke to you.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is deadly serious, child of Christ.Spiritu tuo conteram discipulorum Christi.   Hora aditus. *Yawn.* Oh you're back with pictures again? How many times are you going to post the same ones? It's a shame, your grandiose claims to knowledge in contrast with your content-less posts continually leave me disappointed. |
|
|
|
|
Chess bots are unavoidable. The best chess bots are far better than any human chess player, including world champions. In almost all cases, forcing a draw would be the best anyone can do; the brute force calculation is too strong. See the history of chess bots such as "Stockfish" to get an idea of what you'd be up against. These bots are accessible to the average person, and people would certainly use them if allowed.
|
|
|
|
1) Right, there's no way to prove or disprove God exists using science, but that doesn't stop many atheists (or theists for that matter) from thinking there is. Case in point, it's all over this thread.
Faith : God = Reason : Science Your point do not exist. 2) Science doesn't disprove creationism by proving evolution. These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive or inverse to each other, so proving evolution doesn't disprove creationism. Can other aspects of religious texts be disproved? Yes, but only those things which fall within an empirical context.
Exactly: the fact that the two ideas are mutually exclusive implies that your point do not exist. 3) There are atheists who have a lack of belief in God, and those who also assert a belief that God doesn't exist. It's the latter group which I've been referencing.
I'm not saying that is the Bible that says it. => "atheists needs to die" <= I'm not saying that is the Bible that says it. The explanation for the phrase " atheists needs to die" is found in the sin of idolatry (1st and 2nd commandements) and the punishment is death ( Golden Calf episode) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calfAnd the answer "atheists needs to die" is also the answer to the question "Why atheists hate Religion?".(if somebody tell you that you needs to die because you are atheist I don't think you're going to love him/her, although I may be wrong in some special cases). I think this thread can be closed now. I'm not sure if English is your first language, and if it isn't that would explain the communication problems. My point was clear, and it exists. |
|
|
|
@Joint
Why are you talking about science? I do not see anything in my post that mentions science! Think the closest I come to mentioning science is "bias".
This I do not understand though,now that you mention it,why do the camps need to be so clearly defined? Is there no room for people that sit out this dance
between believing and non-believing?
The problem with my posts is BitNow refuses to clarify his post and instead goes on a tirade that clouds the discussion. I will bow out to I see more rational thoughts being expressed.
I mentioned science because it's by far the most common refuge that atheists take when attempting to support their lack of belief in God. Relevant to your post, it's a refuge that lacks merit as a basis for not believing in God (i.e. scientific evidence alone doesn't suggest anything about God one way or the other). There's room for everyone regardless of whether they believe, don't believe, don't care, or are undecided. That doesn't matter. What matters is what is true, and so we can just stick to who is right and who is wrong, and why. I don't think that science is used to prove or disprove that god exists as there is no way to do that. It is usually used to disprove certain parts of religious text, like evolution vs. creationism or the age of the earth, and then say if that is incorrect, how can we tell the rest is true? Regarding the attempt to support the lack of belief - having a belief in something isn't the default. Without any conditioning, I don't think many people would even think up the concept of a god, let alone a specific religious ideology. So for those that weren't conditioned from birth, there really isn't an explanation to support the lack of belief...it's just not a part of their life. 1) Right, there's no way to prove or disprove God exists using science, but that doesn't stop many atheists (or theists for that matter) from thinking there is. Case in point, it's all over this thread. 2) Science doesn't disprove creationism by proving evolution. These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive or inverse to each other, so proving evolution doesn't disprove creationism. Can other aspects of religious texts be disproved? Yes, but only those things which fall within an empirical context. 3) There are atheists who have a lack of belief in God, and those who also assert a belief that God doesn't exist. It's the latter group which I've been referencing. |
|
|
|
@Joint
Why are you talking about science? I do not see anything in my post that mentions science! Think the closest I come to mentioning science is "bias".
This I do not understand though,now that you mention it,why do the camps need to be so clearly defined? Is there no room for people that sit out this dance
between believing and non-believing?
The problem with my posts is BitNow refuses to clarify his post and instead goes on a tirade that clouds the discussion. I will bow out to I see more rational thoughts being expressed.
I mentioned science because it's by far the most common refuge that atheists take when attempting to support their lack of belief in God. Relevant to your post, it's a refuge that lacks merit as a basis for not believing in God (i.e. scientific evidence alone doesn't suggest anything about God one way or the other). There's room for everyone regardless of whether they believe, don't believe, don't care, or are undecided. That doesn't matter. What matters is what is true, and so we can just stick to who is right and who is wrong, and why. |
|
|
|
This is a discussion about why Atheists hate religion and you are using GOD to get out of any true discussion. Its always a trolls first attempt to derail by insulting ones intelligence.
You have asked to stay on topic but you wander off everytime some one asks a question that pokes a hole in the theory of GOD.
Do you like simple solutions?
Maybe that is why people hate religion because it demands to be respected well showing little the other way,history can attest to this.
That is staying on topic.And that is not what religion is about, that is what I'm implying you to do. Answer my question without relying on the out clause of me not being a believer and I might give you a leg to stand on.
Answering a question without taking into considerations the environment is stupid and I'm an engineer I will show unprofessionalism if I will do that.
Thank You.The problem we have with religion and its posters,is it always lacks depth. As soon as a issue of any merit is raised,a cop out is raised and we non believers are supposed to act like it holds weight in the discussion. Why are atheists supposed to explain everything but religious types can just say "god wills it"! Coming from any religious stance shows those with out prejudice of religion that you are working with blinders. A bias that controls all aspects of life,so strong that it quite often is unshakable. ... Referencing emboldened passage: A couple dozen times now, I've raised a sound concern regarding the belief of (most) atheists here that they "believe (only) in science" and that for which there is scientific evidence. Specifically, I pointed out the established fact that science operates upon assumptions that are non-empirical and empirically unfalsifiable, and similarly have pointed out the additional fact that science cannot even conclude upon the very mathematical, algebraic structures upon which scientific theory-making depends (i.e. theories are algebraic constructs). While this point has been acknowledged only a couple of times by more open-minded posters in this thread, most atheists here have conveniently ignored this point despite the fact that it creates serious and fundamental problems for a worldview in which scientific evidence is regarded as the only means by which we can know, or should believe in, anything. In this case, atheists might as well replace "God wills it!" with "Science wills it!" (i.e. essentially stating that the explanatory power of science is greater than its philosophical foundations). Unfortunately, that mentality doesn't make the issue go away. |
|
|
|
OT
So, even though Eve didn't sin by disobeying a directive from God in her speech with the serpent, she may have lied. Perhaps we don't have the whole conversation that God had with Adam and Eve. Perhaps God did indeed tell them to not touch the fruit. But we don't have record of it.
Why you want to know, didn't I already told you that knowledge leads to death? Thank You. ===================================================================================================================
How did Eve know that disobeying God would be wrong before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only after which she would have known it was wrong?
" Wow"... so she didn't want to disobey: she just wanted to know death. That was illuminating. /OT This wouldn't be my interpretation. Regardless, it was just a question for BADecker to ponder. How/why does someone want something if they lack any knowledge of whether it's good or bad? Part of the answer is in entropy. The creation happened a minimum of 6,000+ years ago. We don't know exactly how much knowledge and understanding Adam and Eve were given. We don't have their kind of great ability to think, because of entropy. Until we have some detailed writings from back then, we may never know what they thought about, or the knowledge they had from God.  Sorry, not willing to entertain this answer because 1) entropy is outside of the context of this discussion, and your application of the term is misguided (i.e. learn what entropy is and why you're misusing it), and 2) you're contradicting your personal beliefs regarding your ability to interpret Genesis. |
|
|
|
Eve goofed by talking to the serpent. Adam goofed by not correcting Eve's goof before it became a sin. Eve didn't talk to the serpent. The serpent talked to Eve. Adam didn't need to correct Eve. Adam needed to find something else to do. If it had not been a husband/wife situation, Adam may not have been the one in authority over Eve. Genesis 3:2,3: The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ” So, even though Eve didn't sin by disobeying a directive from God in her speech with the serpent, she may have lied. Perhaps we don't have the whole conversation that God had with Adam and Eve. Perhaps God did indeed tell them to not touch the fruit. But we don't have record of it. How did Eve know that disobeying God would be wrong before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only after which she would have known it was wrong? God had told Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit, that the day in which they ate it they would surely die. We have no record of God saying at that point that it was wrong to select death. But here is how I look at it. It is rather easy to destroy life. People do it all the time nowadays. But it is almost impossible to make life. Perhaps we are close to it in some ways. Since God made the complexity that was Adam and Eve, and then breathed His spirit into them, the destruction of such complexity is wrong. However, my thinking aside, there are others, in the Bible, who call it a sin in one way or another. But Eve wouldn't have known that the destruction of such complexity is wrong. God didn't grant her this knowledge beforehand; He simply warned her not to eat it. She wouldn't have known a distinction between whether it was better to listen to the Serpent or to God. She could only know this after eating the fruit. |
|
|
|
OT
So, even though Eve didn't sin by disobeying a directive from God in her speech with the serpent, she may have lied. Perhaps we don't have the whole conversation that God had with Adam and Eve. Perhaps God did indeed tell them to not touch the fruit. But we don't have record of it.
Why you want to know, didn't I already told you that knowledge leads to death? Thank You. ===================================================================================================================
How did Eve know that disobeying God would be wrong before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only after which she would have known it was wrong?
" Wow"... so she didn't want to disobey: she just wanted to know death. That was illuminating. /OT This wouldn't be my interpretation. Regardless, it was just a question for BADecker to ponder. How/why does someone want something if they lack any knowledge of whether it's good or bad? |
|
|
|
Eve goofed by talking to the serpent. Adam goofed by not correcting Eve's goof before it became a sin. Eve didn't talk to the serpent. The serpent talked to Eve. Adam didn't need to correct Eve. Adam needed to find something else to do. If it had not been a husband/wife situation, Adam may not have been the one in authority over Eve. Genesis 3:2,3: The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ” So, even though Eve didn't sin by disobeying a directive from God in her speech with the serpent, she may have lied. Perhaps we don't have the whole conversation that God had with Adam and Eve. Perhaps God did indeed tell them to not touch the fruit. But we don't have record of it. How did Eve know that disobeying God would be wrong before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only after which she would have known it was wrong? |
|
|
|
Dude, you've no evidence of nothing! You've long shots based on theories you clearly don't know.
Entropy proves zip, the Universe ain't binary or exact to start with.
At a fundamental level of conceptual understanding (which is the only thing that matters inasmuch as theorizing about it), yes it is. But yeah, entropy proves zip. |
|
|
|
Empiricism, the epistemological foundation for science, is the theory that knowledge is only derived from empirical/physical phenomena. However, empiricism carries non-empirical assumptions, e.g. observation has no causal effect on physical reality.
The problem with an empirical methodology wielding non-empirical assumptions is that this means the assumptions are derived elsewhere. In this case, that "elsewhere" is philosophical. But, if we assume this non-empirical assumption to be valid, then we concede that knowledge must also derive from outside empiricism, i.e. outside science.
Yes, science works, and yes it produces technology that improves convenience and quality of life. That, however, does not mean it is the best source of knowledge in all cases, and we know this especially because science doesn't work without its philosophical and mathematical underpinnings.
I didn't replied to your post because your nick: "the joint" I was told all my life that people do not believe me because I was high: now it's your turn. Thank You and best regards. em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Observation_inseparable_from_theoryAlthough it is often taken for granted, it is not at all clear how one can infer the validity of a general statement from a number of specific instances or infer the truth of a theory from a series of successful tests.[12] For example, a chicken observes that each morning the farmer comes and gives it food, for hundreds of days in a row. The chicken may therefore use inductive reasoning to infer that the farmer will bring food every morning. However, one morning, the farmer comes and kills the chicken. How is scientific reasoning more trustworthy than the chicken's reasoning?
Any argument in favor of induction must avoid the problem of the criterion, in which any justification must in turn be justified, resulting in an infinite regress. The regress argument has been used to justify one way out of the infinite regress, foundationalism. Foundationalism claims that there are some basic statements that do not require justification. Both induction and falsification are forms of foundationalism in that they rely on basic statements that derive directly from immediate sensory experience.
Another approach is to acknowledge that induction cannot achieve certainty, but observing more instances of a general statement can at least make the general statement more probable. All observation involves both perception and cognition. That is, one does not make an observation passively, but rather is actively engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations are affected by one's underlying understanding of the way in which the world functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived, noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. In this sense, it can be argued that all observation is theory-laden.
Moreover, most scientific observation must be done within a theoretical context in order to be useful. For example, when one observes a measured increase in temperature with a thermometer, that observation is based on assumptions about the nature of temperature and its measurement, as well as assumptions about how the thermometer functions. Such assumptions are necessary in order to obtain scientifically useful observations (such as, "the temperature increased by two degrees"). |
|
|
|
I'm an Atheist. I don't hate religions. I just believe in science that's all. But what I realized is that many wars, conflicts happened and still happen because of different religions. This is silly!!
I have friends who are jews, christians (catholic, evangelic orthodox), moslems. None of them asked me why I'm not religious. But from time to time they're arguing with each other and I'm just sitting there and shaking my head.
Science works, but 'how' and 'why' does it work? Unfortunately, science will forever lack the means to answer these questions as the scientific method lacks the ability to explore and comment about real-but-abstract phenomena, e.g. mathematical principles governing physics in general, or the act of perception from which scientific knowledge can be inferred. Because science cannot explore anything universal enough whose properties distribute to everything, it will never be a source of complete understanding, let alone a complete theory of knowledge in general. WHAT   most of your life revolves around science..you would not be typing on this thread if not for science.. tell me 1 invention that has come out of the bible or any religious books.. the good thing about science is we always learn more and more useful information that can make our lives better.. So how will it make our lives better by reading the bible ..what will we discover that will benefit mankind.. i mean you get religious freaks saying science is the devil and that same person uses all the implements made by science this is how dumb you religious freaks are OK lets say we had no science would your life be better or worse.. I will tell you no running hot baths no phone no telly no cars i could go on for ages what science as invented.. OK lets say we never had religion would your life be better or worse.. my life would be better or no worse because the bible serves no purpose but tells you how to be a better person ..which you should already know because you have feelings and emotions  So before you call out SCIENCE..think of all the everyday stuff you use that was invented because of science..DUMBASS RELIGIOUS FREAKS.. SCIENCE IS THE DEVIL THEN YOU DUMB ASSES GO MAKE A CALL ON YOUR PHONE OR USE THE INTERNET AND SWITCH THE TELLY ON THICK STUPID DUMB ASSES Empiricism, the epistemological foundation for science, is the theory that knowledge is only derived from empirical/physical phenomena. However, empiricism carries non-empirical assumptions, e.g. observation has no causal effect on physical reality. The problem with an empirical methodology wielding non-empirical assumptions is that this means the assumptions are derived elsewhere. In this case, that "elsewhere" is philosophical. But, if we assume this non-empirical assumption to be valid, then we concede that knowledge must also derive from outside empiricism, i.e. outside science. Yes, science works, and yes it produces technology that improves convenience and quality of life. That, however, does not mean it is the best source of knowledge in all cases, and we know this especially because science doesn't work without its philosophical and mathematical underpinnings. |
|
|
|
...
Every month or so I check the couple of websites (showing BTC ATMs) as well as the Facebook page re the International Bitcoin group.
But, I am dismayed that these BTC ATMs (I saw "BTMs" written elsewhere, clever) do not appear anywhere near my city.
I don't see the purpose of ATM's, bitcoin is supposed to be anonymous, and ATM's just defeat that purpose. why buy it in public when you can buy it online without ever having to leave your house Bitcoin is not supposed to be anonymous, and it isn't. What it does do is separate identities from accounts (i.e. BTC addresses), but that doesn't translate to anonymity in the real world. It would be more private to use cash to buy BTC at an ATM than it would to buy from (for example) Coinbase , after which your bank now has a record of your purchase. Furthermore, anytime you buy something with BTC and have it shipped to you, your anonymity is jeopardized. At best, BTC just obfuscates the relationship between transactions and identities with layers of complexity, but BTC isn't supposed to be about anonymity, but rather decentralization and personal responsibility/ownership. |
|
|
|
I'm an Atheist. I don't hate religions. I just believe in science that's all. But what I realized is that many wars, conflicts happened and still happen because of different religions. This is silly!!
I have friends who are jews, christians (catholic, evangelic orthodox), moslems. None of them asked me why I'm not religious. But from time to time they're arguing with each other and I'm just sitting there and shaking my head.
Science works, but 'how' and 'why' does it work? Unfortunately, science will forever lack the means to answer these questions as the scientific method lacks the ability to explore and comment about real-but-abstract phenomena, e.g. mathematical principles governing physics in general, or the act of perception from which scientific knowledge can be inferred. Because science cannot explore anything universal enough whose properties distribute to everything, it will never be a source of complete understanding, let alone a complete theory of knowledge in general. |
|
|
|
We don't even have free will.
Even the giving of free will to mankind...
We MAY have free will
Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny. Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  LOL Every single time I try debating with someone (on whether or not god exists), it seems to be with someone covering all the bases as you've mentioned. That, or the other person is simply so full of themselves it causes their mind to shut out any alternatives to their own 'beliefs'. I literally just said that if we can grow lesser organisms in a petri dish, it's completely possible that our universe is a mere lab experiment in itself...and I'm being argued with the same exact logic We simply cannot use 'scientific facts' to understand something beyond our comprehension. Humanity's understanding of....EVERYTHING....has been attained from our time on Earth. That's it. There could be thousands of galaxies out there, each with different 'laws' of physics/biology/etc. We're carbon-based life forms.....who knows if there are species out there, created from the building blocks of 'elements' we can't even comprehend? There are just too many variables out there, that it's both pointless and narrow-minded to be this devoted to finding a 'god' Have you instead considered focusing on that which is invariant? For example, the relationship between objective content and perception is invariant, i.e. the existence of objective content is inherently linked to our perception of it. Not only is this self-apparent, but it precludes any unnecessary assumptions, e.g. that objective content can exist independent of perception. The reason I mention this is to place a different spin on traditional exploration. Instead of trying to "find" anything, why not instead recognize, in the most simple of terms, how we come to understand anything at all (i.e. the process by which we know) and see what that might tell us about reality instead? Recognizing the self-evident truth that objective content and perception are logically inseparable has vast implications on reality in and of itself, and it can even tell us a hell of a lot about things that we haven't explored or don't know about yet. |
|
|
|
No, I don't believe in God or souls.
OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page.  I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol " If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god. It's a false analogy. Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman. The simplest reason is this: - Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified. - Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified. But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified. In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification. But I see them as the same. To me, the Spider-Man series of books and the God series of books are just make believe stories to entertain their intended audiences. Spider-Man appeals to and was written for a contemporary audience. The God stories are a ragtag collection of different writings appealing to Neanderthal cave dwellers. I'm not going to base my life on either one. The Itsy Bitsy Spider is also a make believe story about a spider's journey up a water spout, made to entertain its intended audience, but spiders actually exist. This criteria is not enough to exclude the possibility of its existence. Furthermore, my post illustrates a distinction in the requirements for verification/falsification of God versus a tangible, empirical object. The only way you can possibly denounce God's existence is on a purely logical basis, either by demonstrating God is unnecessary (disproving the inverse claim that God is necessary), or by demonstrating God is impossible (good luck with that one). God cannot be verified nor disproved on an empirical basis (i.e. neither by physical evidence or a lack thereof). |
|
|
|
No, I don't believe in God or souls.
OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page. I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol " If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god. It's a false analogy. Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman. The simplest reason is this: - Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified. - Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified. But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified. In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification. |
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for someone to direct me to the peer reviewed scientific journal where this is published. If it is not, then it is simply not science. Scientific research is not conducted by basement dwellers at some public forums.
If there were actual science involved it would be published, reviewed the world over, the experiments would be recreated and tested, experts in their fields would try additional experiments. And no, the guy at Bible camp is not an expert in science. Indeed he must reject science to keep the whole house of cards from falling.
While peer-reviewed research certainly has its merits (obvious ones), you certainly must recognize the inherent problems with this standard as it means that: 1) virtually nobody with a better idea has a chance at garnering the attention his idea deserves unless he has a degree and the appropriate academic connections; 2) only tentative, rather than radical, progress will be made due to both the need for consensus among like-minded (not necessarily best-mided) people and the threat to the works of others before them who are protective of their own ideas; 3) generally, new ideas will only garner attention if they can be backed by previously established ones (example: the APA rejected a research proposal I submitted on the sole basis that it was novel and therefore I had no one to cite...um, wtf?!); 4) etc. The peer-review process as it stands is nice and has merits, and simultaneously it's arguably the greatest impediment to progress and knowledge that exists at a societal level. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
