And replies such as this are why religious threads get locked. I have kept myself from being a smartass toward the atheists in this forum I suggest you should give us religious people the same benefit.

Goodbye.

Interesting, I'll try to be as honest and courteous as I possibly can.

I'm going to be blunt, I don't appreciate people telling me "you're risking annhilation or eternal happiness" who says the people touting this statement are correct or are going to their heaven? I'm sure god or the gods of this universe should they happen to exist don't appreciate their followers throwing out coercive terms like that, people should join a faith because they want to legitmately be a member not beause people are hanging the "hell and damnation or heaven and happiness threat" over their head,

You said you agreed people shouldn't try to coerce other people, but that is a form of coerscion to say wagering between "annihilation or infinite happiness" that comes off as either you join or you suffer.

Every religious person is not good and every non religious person is not bad, you mean to tell me that god would save a wicked person who happens to follow a specific religion and then condemn to hell someone to hell simply for being unsure or not believing? I find that hard to believe.


Most of the people in this world and in this thread commenting live in countries where religious people are the majority, it's basically impossible to not already know about the majority religion of your country, obviously not by heart, but the general concepts are basically understood.

Muslims and Christians in India surely have a decent knowledge of Hinduism as it is thr majority religion in India.

Hindus and Jews in Germany surely have a working knowledge of Christianity as it is a majority religion there,


Now clearly if those who live in those societies thought the religion of the majority was for them, they would have joined it already or make plans to do so as after all they're surrounded by the majority faith and whether they care to or not, they are exposed to it.



I actually collect religious books and have the Koran, Bible and plan on getting the Torah, the Pali Cannon, etc. soon.

I've discussed religion with countless people from Wiccans, Christians, Muslims, HIndus, Agnostics, Jews and Atheists, we came into the discussion without trying to convert people, everyone is intelligent enough to decide on their own what to believe in, I find it insulting to my intelligence for people to tell me "I want you to know about Christianity" I was raised in a Christian majority society and in a Christian household, it's not like I'm just some lost child, I know enough about it and I respect believers, I expect the same courtesy and for people to stop trying to convert me after I have expressed total disinterest with joining.



I don't mean my post to come off as petulant, merely my honest thoughts. I'm open to all theories and ideas hence my Agnosticism, but I am not however open ot people giving me ultimatums.

And now we are on to name calling. And I thought you were intelligent? I honestly don't care if you tolerate it or not. If you don't leave the thread and if you do keep your sarcasm and name calling out of it.

If it's


tl;dr

that's another issue entirely....

Real mature Bezou. Jesus still loves you bro. Lol. Anyway I'm done responding to your immaturity although I must admit I find it hilarious.

You mad bro?

You allowed Bezou to walk over a precipice instead of leaving well-enough alone.

And yes, you do think he's lying, which I've stated earlier is a thought based entirely on you. However, there is a 99.99% chance you are wrong, simply because you are not Bezou.

What you did with your questioning is exactly the point of my very first post in this thread: Religion isn't bad, the people in it make it bad.



You really need to prioritize what really matters to you in life, and in complete honesty, I beg you to rethink that someone else's religious/nonreligious beliefs should matter to you.

All I'm saying is that the question matters. A lot.

It's not just the Christian creed. It's all creeds. There is no question more important than "why do I exist."

If you say the question doesn't matter, then you pre-suppose the protestant salvation theory is false. I don't hold to that salvation theory myself, but heard I've solid arguments for it, and I think people dismiss it way too quickly.


People can think for themselves. It's up to them to decide whether that salvation theory is true or not. The protestant isn't holding anyone's hand over a torch (and if they are, I'm not endorsing that).

If the notion of possible damnation scares people, it's up to them to investigate the merits behind the idea. You can't expect people to stop preaching an idea just because other people find it scary.

And if it is indeed true, then they're OBLIGED to preach it. You're argument against the evangelizing of the idea presupposes that the idea is false, and that seems premature to me.


No, I don't believe that. That said, there is a logical tie between your metaphysical beliefs and your ethical beliefs: the former will dictate the latter. I don't think atheism is a train ticket to hell, but I do believe someone is at a serious disadvantage when trying to live an ethical life if they're operating on fundamentally wrong data.


Now this I definitely don't agree with. People just straight-up do not understand why the Christian theology does not not approve of modern sexual institutions. They think we're imposing arbitrary rules, but to understand why sexuality is morally sensitive according to Christians, you have to understand the human condition as it is understood by orthodox Christianity

Most people don't get that. Most CHRISTIANS don't get that! 90% of my Christian peers have no clue how the morality of their creed actually operates. That's why there's such a large communication breakdown.


Thing is, the majority of common Christians don't understand they're own faith, so any second-hand knowledge that permeates into non-Christian circles is going to be watered down and in many aspects, just plain wrong.


I guess it comes down to extent of the preaching. I'm not protestant, so my concept of evangelizing is probably not what you're referring to, but I don't intend to give a sermon to anyone who isn't interested. It would be a waste of energy. I've always believed civil argument is the best method for spreading the faith. If someone doesn't want to discuss, there really isn't much one can do at that point.


It's all good. Honestly, I don't have the energy to have these discussions like I did in the old days. I normally don't even read the general discussion anymore (I just happened to stumble on this thread). But when people start building straw men versions of my faith, I'm doing myself an injustice by not saying anything.

When did I say I don't think he is lying? I just worded it different. That's all. Plus I thought he wasn't giving me the whole truth. Still don't. I believe he believes in reason, thought, and rationality. I just don't think he started out with that argument. Therefore "didn't give me a straight answer" applies better than calling Bezou a "liar" because I think there is more to his answer. But a simple question in which I thought the answer had hidden truths doesn't give religion a bad name at all. It's not my fault, people of religions fault, or religion itselfs fault Bezou got angry. Don't say that a simple question in which I thought tthe answer had hidden truths supports your argument that relgious people make religion a bad thing. It doesn't.

It's not the exact question that proves my point.

The mere fact that you questioned his beliefs proves my point.

The fact that you additionally stated your feeling - and offer - that he should convert proves it even further.

So many Christians do this, as if being a non-Christian is such a bad thing. People take great offense when someone questions their beliefs to them, and it is best that you don't.

You did not have to ask. You should not have asked.

I never offered that he convert although I would be happy if he did. I simply asked what would make him believe? How is that trying to convert someone? His answer could have been "if God(s) showed up in kick me in the balls!" All my questions were really just trying to figure out what and how he feels about religion. He usually just talks shit about religion instead of giving a good opinion why he doesn't partake in it. But he never does. He just bashes it constantly.

Atheism itself was never questioned. I simply asked him what made him choose atheism. I really wanted to know his reasoning why he hates religion so much and if you ask an atheist that question and you get an honest answer you find out the answer to that question.

Who says he didn't give an honest answer?

You, right?

Whatever answer he gives you is his answer. Regardless of whether or not you think he's lying, just take the answer and leave it at that. Seriously, man, it's not that important for you to go searching for the truth.

Seriously why do you care so much in a conversation between Bezou and I? What makes you think you have to defend him when he isn't being attacked. If I don't believe he Is telling the truth so be it. He will either give the truth or claim he is already given it. He did not have to get upset. Judging by his anger and the way he just threw a bitch fit I now have more reasonable belief he didn't tell me the whole truth. Either way he isn't going to give me the answer on why he hates religion. He isn't part of this thread and I'm happy he isn't because he is very negative and to tell you the truth he wasn't doing the atheist side of the argument any good.

Oh, My...

"To each his own."

Your right. I'm moving on.

Could you elaborate here? Possibly walk me through the mathematical proofs used to formulate the claim? I don't understand the problem you're addressing. When you call the infinite set a mathematical impossibility, are you suggesting it's impossible in mathematics, or in the physical world?


I do not follow. We are still operating under the assumption that the Universe has a beginning, and therefore has a cause. How is your claim any different from a God of the gaps argument? You are making the claim that the agent must be a creator transcendent of space and time, based on the assumption that space and time has a beginning. The original assumption is still purely speculative, as demonstrated by the limitations of current theories and lack of empirical data. I do not understand why this particular claim is analytically true, more so than any other claims addressed by string theorists, LQG theorists, or any other quantum gravity theorists.


It is possible that Universe has always existed. There are several hypotheses that try to provide an explanation of the state of the Universe pre-singularity. The Cyclic Model of the Universe is one example, where space and time undergo periodic, infinite cycles of contraction and expansion.

The difficulty that I have agreeing with the second premise is the subject of causality. We have observed the transition of particles into higher energy states, we've observed the annihilation of particles and antiparticles into radiation, we've observed the production of new configurations of matter from the rearrangement of existing elementary particles. Can we apply the same logic of causality to the Universe as a whole as we do with constituents of the Universe? Is it really logical to assume that a contingent Universe must have a cause on the basis that events we observe within the Universe have causes? I would say that this assumption is also far-fetched based upon the limitations of current knowledge.


One can also argue that rational knowledge is dependent on the acquisition of empirical data. In my opinion, the introduction of new scientific theories requires both rational and empirical knowledge. Newton's 2nd Law of Motion would be unsubstantiated with no empirical data to derive a relationship between acceleration and net positive force. Newton's 2nd Law could not have been put to the test without the rationale established by Newton's 1st Law. Rational principles are used to obtain empirical data, and rational knowledge is obtained from the analysis of said data. With no empirical data to support one's premises, the argument lacks substance. With no rationale, there are no logical conclusions to draw from collected sensory data. That's my view, at least.

The whole point of me replying to your first post is that you're presenting your belief as the logical choice, despite the unknowns. Regardless, you're an eloquent writer and your posts have been interesting reads.

Oh, on the abstract level, it's easy. You can have all the infinities you want. But in concrete application, the infinite string of moments you would need for a universe to have no beginning defies logic.

Let's assume the past goes infinitely backwards and time never had a specific beginning. In that case, you have an infinite set of moments which existed before the present moment.

Now let's say you picked out a moment out of the infinite set. It can be any moment you like. As a matter of fact, let's pick a random moment in the first half of the set. If you existed at that moment, how many moments would have to transpire before you reached the present moment? Of course, the answer is an infinite amount of moments.

Let's pick a moment in the second half of the set: how many moments would have to transpire before you reached the present moment. The answer, of course, is still an infinite amount of moments.

If the set of moments prior to now was indeed infinite, you'd simply never reach the present moment. Thing is, you can make the span of a moment any amount of time you want, and the math is all the same. There is no difference between an infinite amount of seconds and an infinite amount of years.


When you say "the original assumption," are you referring to the assumption that time has a beginning, or that the agent has to be transcendent of space-time?

If it's the first of those, that's addressed above. If it's the second, it's analytically true because if we assume the opposite scenario, we end up violating a law of logic: the cause of A cannot be ontologically dependent on the existence of A.

Now, if arguing the quality that is space-time transcendence is not enough to deem an entity God, then that's a fair counter-response.


But you still need a concrete infinite set for those solutions to work... I just don't believe that's possible. At least it's never been witnessed in nature. People often respond to me saying "but isn't matter infinitely divisible?" I think it is, but that's not a set. That's a quality.

And if it was in nature, how would we witness it? Wouldn't the only way to do so would be observing something an infinite amount of times? How do you observe an infinite set?


I'm not a physicist, but all the events you named above (as far as I know) have sufficient explanations. There is no sufficient explanation for non-existence to spawn substance.

And remember: causes are not directly observable. We observe relationships between objects, and from the consequences of their interactions, we infer causes. Many scientists dont' acknowledge the difference between an unobservable cause and the lack of causation.

Not my field, though. I would need more info to give you a proper response.


This is almost exactly what Hume said, and Kant's counter-response is that without built in categorical knowledge, empiricism doesn't yield knowledge. It only yields perceptions. You still have to apply principles to come to even very basic conclusions (EX: "if I touch fire, I will get burned." The perceptions of those two events aren't adequate for knowledge. The conclusion that I will get burned EVERY TIME I touch fire is a rational deduction. You still have to apply A>>B conditional).

The issue is this: rational principles cannot be obtained from analysis of empirical data because analysis is nothing more than application of rational principles.


You're not so bad yourself.

Thank you for the kind feedback. As you already know, these posts take a long time to write, and you don't always know if someone else is going to read them.

I wonder....


apparently Bezou, if all belliefs have to be based on reality, by which I mean that we perceive reality, what stops me from being solipsist?

Meaning: everything else aside my own ego is not real, everything else is a figment of my mind, I am the only true existant.

What proves to you, as an atheist that all other personalities, the outside world is as real as you? There is no true evidence that the proofs of others is not just another mindgame of semmiotics that function to allow such (other people) things to exists to reassure yourn existence?

What disproves that the others with different mindsets ideas are not you or your own subconcious acting out the world as a mechanism for self implementation?


The wonders of human minds, it takes alot of faith to be an atheist, it takes zero effort to be sheep. Philosophy, theosophy, religion, good stuff.

I could see reason being looked at like that, sure. Tie the inference of reason granting the individual greater wisdom or knowledge in there, and we have the "body." The assumption of course, would be that reason, as a blessing was granted by some higher power (God, Alah, Buddah, whoever).

I could also see that if the the arguments became stale (or abused, really), faith refines itself, and adapts just like anything else human.

I'm not really saying faith or bust, I just don't think that this information disturbs my point at all. It's always been faith and belief that religions stand on. Science+Logic+Reason always tries to pokes holes in that. I love and excel in science, btw.

The mere fact that you returned to this thread with several posts, even after your first post, with so much confidence, clarified that you would not be returning because you knew you would get bashed, renders the above post void. The funny thing is, you never got bashed. Not even by Bezou.

You yourself could not get beyond the words someone else had to say about your own beliefs, and yet you criticized Bezou for getting beyond what you say.

I know for a fact you got upset with every post I threw at you, even if it isn't manifested in your own posts. Simple proof of this is the mere fact that you returned to this thread. More than once.

The snarky outlook you left in your first post faded quickly. While Bezou's lasted up until you to him insulted his beliefs.


All in all, I say once again, you did not have to ask him why he was an atheist, and you definitely did not have to ask what would have to happen for him to believe. The latter question was definitely an insult to Bezou's beliefs.

You pretty much stated, "Being an atheist is wrong. You should be a Christian." And I'm positive odds are that's how he took it.

You should really take a moment to look beyond your own self-righteousness and think about what you asked of him.

Like I said before, I'm off the subject. It's not progressing the thread. PM if you really wanna debate more

Keep it civil folks

*sigh* I knew at some point things would break down and what not, so I'm just going to come out and say what comes to mind.

Bezou is right. If you believe in something that is not true you are delusional, period.

However: believeing something is possible but not going so far as to call it reality does not make one delusional.

Examples

"I believe in God an an ALL POWERFUL force"
Delusion: it is not possible for something to be all powerful due to the paradoxes it presents.
Possible reality exception: Science has found a few examples of paradoxes that exist despite their paradoxical nature. this has been exploited in some physics experiments at CERN. This does not in any way mean that the God paradox can work though.

"I believe in Specific God(s) who's name(s) is/are in this book"
Delusion: all Gods in all holy books worshiped by all men and women are made up by humans and therefore are fake. period.

"I believe that there may be some sort of higher power out there or God-like entity but I do not know"
True Statement: God is traditionally defined as an all powerful being, which is most likely impossible. however there may be an imperfect "god" or several such things out there. going about their god business not giving a shit about us as we might as well be microbes or even atoms in comparison.

"There are no God(s) or higher power(s), period"
Delusion: this statement is just as bad as claiming the opposite, you dont know any more than believers do so shut up about it.

So what is the safest answer to this question?

"No one knows"

Therefore it should be the official policy of this forum, and of every organization that exists anywhere on earth for that mater, that all religions are man made, and at the end of the day God(s) may or may not exist in some form. No one knows so stfu with the debates already /thread etc.