The Anti-theist Thread

[Wayfarer]

Sam would say you can't have too much rope...
Macs are evil?
The earth is 30 years old?

Those are all rather amusing. ]: )

Lee- I was undecided between creation and evolution when we were still back at the vault. I was somewhat of a nihilist then- even my osting style has changed a lot.

One thing I find interesting is that, even though I've said this before, nobody seems to believe me. Although the most vehement critics of any doctrine are those who once believed but came to realize it was false.

A preemptive comment here: yes guys, I'm as convinced than you are that your prior religion was wrong. And I'm even more convinced that all humans, to some degree or another, fail to understand and apply the truth.

Anyway: Cirdan.

How is a belief in truth an intellectual weakness? You seem to eqaute 'intellect' with a search for information. I pose this question: is that not mistaking the means for the end? Intellect is, after all, the ability to learn, the capacity for knowledge, or (my favorite) the faculty to know things. So I ask you, is not the faculty to know things (intellect) apart from things that can be known (Facts), completely useless? In any case, it seems to me a rather difficult position to hold. Would you not say that to search for truth, while claiming that there is no truth, is somewhat of a farce?

Looking at it from the other side of the fence, the same problem is evident: Those who make religion their god will not have God in their religion.

I see a difficulty with your black hole idea, but perhaps it is best that I look at it differently:

Let's say we have a large hourglass. When the grains of sand fall the usable potential energy is lost due to friction and whatnot. Now, once all the grains of sand have fallen, the usable energy is all used up, and it takes an infusion of outside energy (picking it up and turning it over) in order to restore it.

I shall not bother with the question of whether gravity is in fact energy or a quirk of space. But I must point out that, like the sand in the hourglass, the matter falling into the black hole cannot move out again without an indescribable infusion of energy. Once all matter in the universe has fallen into the black hole, there will be no usable energy left. So it seems your questioning of entropy results in another example of what it works like.

I think your question was how can I prove god doesn't exist...please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you'll do

With the greatest of enthusiasm!

Even I would not stoop to demanding proof of a negative. What I'd like is for us to examine the possibilities-that everything must have come from SomeThing, and that this something is either a Single Entity, which we may call God, or a Total System, which can be called either Nature, or The Omniverse.

Briefly touching on some nescessary characteristics of this entity, it must always have existed, can never cease to exist, and cannot be contained by anything else.

My question may be stated like this: Since there are several rather troubling difficulties with a Omniverse system, it is much more rational to believe in God. Can you answer these difficulties to a degree that will make an Omniverse system acceptable?

The difficulties that I have already stated are these:

1) If the uni/omniverse has existed for an infinite amount of time, there should be no energy left to perform work. Since there is, it cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, and cannot be the ultinmate cause of everything else.

2)If everything is a result of the Omniverse, then human behavior is a result of antecedent events, and, given that these events do not change, no other behavior is possible. Thus there is no free will.

3)If everything is a result of the omniverse then, like behavior, human thought is a result of prior causes. This means that human thought is merely a result of the total system, and cannot be taken as having real value. Hence, if we believe in the Omniverse, we are in effect saying that our belief in the same is a result of the system, and has no real value.

And I shall add another:

4)Humans have the idea that there are problems with the universe. When we say this, we usually don't mean that we don't happen to like the way things are at the moment, but that there is something fundamentally wrong. But, if human thought is a result of the Total System, then wherever the universe is wrong, we should be wrong, and thus we should have no idea that it is.

Now, let me stress that if you were able to really answer these difficulties , not only would you be justified in your belief, I would certainly come to share it. However, unless they are dealt with (really dealt with, not rationalized away) the whole concept is absurd, and there is no reasonable choice but to believe in God, whatever you believe about him.

Now, in regard to panthiesm, polythiesm, and the rest. It is a common error to believe that they are somehow different from the systems I have outlined. You can look, for example, at the greek mythology. Zeus and the rest were children of the titans. The titans were children of Chronos, who was a child of Uranus, who was created by Gaia. So we come to a self existent entity-Gaia, who fits the definition of a self-existant God. Alternately, we can look at the norse mytholgy. In the beginning there was Ginnungagap (the void), and then there was Niflheim and Muspelheim- the lands of ice and fire. From these we got everything there is today. Just like the Omniverse system i've stated.

The thing is, these are not new ideas. Anybody who sat down and really reasoned it out would have come to the same conclusion. You and I have had the better part of the work done for us.

Existentialism is very... interesting, but rather pointless.

Human thought is not purely subjective. I agree with you, but I think my metaphysical views are more open to that than those you have espoused. We must discuss this later...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Human thought is not purely subjective. I agree with you, but I think my metaphysical views are more open to that than those you have espoused. We must discuss this later...

You been talking to Blackheart lately?

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by emplynx
I don't know why, but you calling BoP makes me want to mention something I have been thinking of.

I have noticed excellent proof for the existance of a creator right here at Entmoot. You know what it is? I will give you ten seconds to figure it out.
(Keep reading)


Here is my proof for the existance of a creator:
Cirdan
BeardofPants
Anduril
All three of you are BRILLIANT! I think that you should give yourselves more credit than being the decendants of a single-cell, mutant, ocean blob! You should see yourselves that someone as intelligent as you isn't the result of strange mutations but the result of a divine creator who wanted to create something reallllllly cool in his own image!

(this isn't a joke!)

What arrogance that lies in the heart of man
To think himself worthy of a divine plan
How crippled we are in body and mind
If there be a creator it is mercurial or blind
- me

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by emplynx
[B]I don't know why, but you calling BoP makes me want to mention something I have been thinking of.

don't forget afro-elf, the CREATOR OF THE MIGHTY THREAD!

The thread of dread???

Thanks for the compliments... for myself, I'm marginally above average and have waaaaay too much free time.

I hope you will, even without compromising your faith, seek out the legitimate sources of scientific thought on the subjects relating to this thread.

It has been written that the culture of belief systems is so embedded in one's social existance that the personal nature and importance it plays in one's life exceeds the need for the absolute truth. Much of what we have discussed is scientific or historical fact, but a good deal has been reason and logical discourse, which can be very subjective. There are facts that one can experience first or second hand, like the geologic record (my personal favorite), that transend the more abstract concepts of relativity and sub-atomic particle behavior. Seek these out if you seek knowledge. As far as the absolute truth.... were we we?


Did Entmoot Get smoted for this blasphemous thread?

Has anyone seen Gary Larson's "Far Side" showing god at his keyboard? On the screen there is some hapless guy walking under a hoisted piano and at the keyboard god's finger is poised over the "smite" button. Just came to mind for some reason...

[mirrille]

Yes. I also like the word "smite".
It's such a typical "god" thing to do. So judgmental, so punitive, so...final and godlike.
But what is the past participle of "smite"? It doesn't sound as good to say someone was "smitten by the gods". Does quite have the same ring to it.

[Cirdan]

Wayfaerer wrote:
How is a belief in truth an intellectual weakness? You seem to eqaute 'intellect' with a search for information. I pose this question: is that not mistaking the means for the end? Intellect is, after all, the ability to learn, the capacity for knowledge, or (my favorite) the faculty to know things. So I ask you, is not the faculty to know things (intellect) apart from things that can be known (Facts), completely useless? In any case, it seems to me a rather difficult position to hold. Would you not say that to search for truth, while claiming that there is no truth, is somewhat of a farce?

Belief in something proclaimed as truth at face value, while there are facts to the contrary, is intellectual weakness, in my humble opinion.

Intellect is not a storage system. Much like muscles or computers, intellect requires use (and upgrades) to maintain it's capacity. If you took the greatest intellect in the world and placed that person in a vacuum free of all but the basic bodily needs I daresay they would not be to sharp after 30 or 40 years. You experience this when you graduate and get a job(j/k).

I don't hold that there is no truth, only that some truths are subjective and others unknowable at a given point in time. The truth of the composition of the moon, the planets, the stars, and the universe was subjective until the remote sensing techniques were developed. At that point some subjective truths became verafiable and correct. Yet one could still hold a subjective opinion that the data collected was invalid for some reason. This would be a subjective view without proof to the contrary. Why, because not all subjective truths are arrived at through any rigorous thought or basis in existing objective truth or are arrived at a priori of the solution. To stop searching for the truth because one finds a truth is the pitfall. Some truth is temporary. Clarity is the first sign that you have forgotten something.... to keep looking!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by mirrille
Yes. I also like the word "smite".
It's such a typical "god" thing to do. So judgmental, so punitive, so...final and godlike.
But what is the past participle of "smite"? It doesn't sound as good to say someone was "smitten by the gods". Does quite have the same ring to it.

hilarious.... I was just thinking about that the other day. Smote sounds bad enough... but smitten??? it rhymes with kitten!!!

[Cirdan]

Wayfarer wrote
Let's say we have a large hourglass. When the grains of sand fall the usable potential energy is lost due to friction and whatnot. Now, once all the grains of sand have fallen, the usable energy is all used up, and it takes an infusion of outside energy (picking it up and turning it over) in order to restore it.

I shall not bother with the question of whether gravity is in fact energy or a quirk of space. But I must point out that, like the sand in the hourglass, the matter falling into the black hole cannot move out again without an indescribable infusion of energy. Once all matter in the universe has fallen into the black hole, there will be no usable energy left. So it seems your questioning of entropy results in another example of what it works like

No question gravity effects time and space. The matter that falls into the black hole increases the mass of the black hole, thus increasing it's gravitational effects. This is one of those subjective truths since, again, discoveries within the last year on the amount of "dark matter" in space is much greter than previously thought. It is a mental exercise to conceive of what might happen if all existing matter eventually collapsed into a singularity of gravitation.

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]Wayfarer wrote:
Even I would not stoop to demanding proof of a negative. What I'd like is for us to examine the possibilities-that everything must have come from SomeThing, and that this something is either a Single Entity, which we may call God, or a Total System, which can be called either Nature, or The Omniverse.


The problem with redefining god as "the source all reality" is that it no longer fits the literal and biblical god. God dissolves into nothing but everything. Where then would be the god who would act and intervene? This "omniverse" type of god is no different than the absence of god in the atheist view. The only difference is the substitution of the word "god" for the word "nature". Read Hume and Kant for an endless dissertation on this concept.

Oh, and the Omniverse concept is pantheism.

*curs'ed typos*

[Cirdan]

Wayfarer wrote:

Existentialism is very... interesting, but rather pointless.

You should read Camus' "The Rebel" first, before dismissing it. It's not "The Answer". The point is to open your mind!

[afro-elf]

Existentialism is very... interesting, but rather pointless

sounds like you could subsistute religion in there to me

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by afro-elf


sounds like you could subsistute religion in there to me

ouch!

[Andúril]

Lelondul :

First - regardless of your beliefs, there can be no doubt that the Bible's historical accuracy is unrivalled of the ancient texts.

Actually, there is massive doubt. Doubt about parting seas, talking burning bushes, multiple headed creatures, animal headed humanoids, the list goes on and on. Did these things historically happen? I doubt it.

Given the Bible's accuracy (proven by believers and non-believers alike), I personally find it pretty amazing how non-believers/athiests/etc. simply close their ears to the miracles Christ performed during his life. Miracles which, were witnessed by his friends and devout foes alike (who never made any claims to the contrary, mind you).

When exactly, was the Bible proven accurate? Do you have any sources for your claims? Can you without doubt know that Jesus existed at all? Do you have any sources that are external to the Bible, to validate these "miracles"? Or are you assuming that because the Bible (which probably has some truthfulness, regarding certain historical events...) says those miracles happened, you must just believe it? Using faith, right?

Would you mind if I posted some biblical contradictions? I'll start off with one, at the end of this post.

You can hide behind your 'unproveable theories' of creation all you want, but it just so happens the most accurate historical refernce in the history of the world spells it out pretty clearly.

Yes, very clearly, through the use of unclear metaphorical language, and other language interpretated and labelled subjectively as literal, and through the use of temporal language (referring to God, which just confuses us, apparently, because some believe God is outside of time)....

He was physically present and walked with men, and did Godly things, it just so happend it wasn't in the present (though his holy influence is far from missing in the present).

Do you have any evidence of this "interaction" with his creation, other than the bible? Why doesn't he "interact" with us in the present? What holy influence is it that you are talking about?

You're right - we are at a disadvantage not having this concrete, visuall proof, but a little reading is all it takes.

Actually, I read the Bible, and the only thing it did was reinforce my belief against its integrity. If I hadn't read it in the critical manner that I did, I might still be a Christian right now...

Who's to say a Day wasn't akin to a year in ancient times?

Well then it wouldn't be a day, would it?

My first textual contradiction: Who ordered David to perform the census? God or satan? Examine the evidence (KJV):

1 Chronicles 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

So, who was it?

[afro-elf]

don't forget afro-elf, the don't forget afro-elf, the CREATOR OF THE MIGHTY THREAD!

The thread of dread???

The litany of afro-elf: The thread of dread CH6 :V 23


OH ! CREATOR OF THE MIGHTY THREAD!
SHOW US YOUR LOVE BY STRIKING INNOCENTS DEAD

SPEAK TO IN METAPHORS, FOR THE GUILLIBLE MIND
SPEAK THROUGH THE PRIEST WITH THEIR POCKETS LINED


amen

[BeardofPants]

Yes, yes, but can I be the anti-christ?

[Twilight]

MY Bible has a very good comentary on the explination of the Chronicals/Samuel verse you were talking about.

Did God cause David to sin? God doesn't cause people to sin, but he does allow sinners to reveal the sinfulness of their hearts by their actions. God presented the opportunity to David in order to deal with a disastrous national tendency, and he wanted this desire to show itself. First Chronicals 21:1 says Satan incited David to do it. Hebrew writters don't always distinguish between primary and secondary causes. So if God allowed Saten to tempt David, to them it is as if God did it because God needs to give permission for it to happen.

[afro-elf]

Yes, yes, but can I be the anti-christ?

even better


PANTHEON


On the side of The Transcendant Legion

Afro-elf : Lord of Flesh ( bio-tech)

BoP : Goddess of the People ( anthropolgy)

Cirdan : Lord of the Earth ( geology)

Anduril : Lord of the Logical Assault ( don't what you do or plan to do)


The Young Goddesses: Rogue Elf and FF


against them

Wayfarer :the Relentless (aka the condensing !@#$)

Emplynx : of the Blind Faith

Nibs: The Moderate ( MIA)

and a horde of minons

[afro-elf]

Bop I would made you my consort but I didn't wanna start a another quabble with Anduril and gets us banned

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Twilight
So if God allowed Saten to tempt David, to them it is as if God did it because God needs to give permission for it to happen.

You mean I need God's permission to be the anti-christ? Damn, that could be a problem, since I don't believe in him....

Ah well, a nice dream while it lasted. Maybe I'll go and play on my mac now.

[Andúril]

Did God cause David to sin? God doesn't cause people to sin, but he does allow sinners to reveal the sinfulness of their hearts by their actions.

I did not mention anything about "sinning", I merely asked about the rightful cause of the action.

Hebrew writters don't always distinguish between primary and secondary causes.

So what you mean is, Hebrew writers utilised vague, misleading innacuracies to explain things? I'm sorry, but how does one adequately differentiate between a primary and secondary cause, in this case, and how can one know the accurate interpretation of such misleading language? Nice try. Maybe you can give me an example of this Hebrew writing quirk?

In each verse, there is no secondary cause. There is no reason for any secondary cause. Lets have another look, shall we?

1 Chronicles 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

See? Chronicles says clearly that Satan provoked (moved) David. Samuel says clearly that God moved (provoked) David. There is no mention of secondary cause in either of the two accounts. This primary/secondary cause theory is wishful, speculative thinking.

So if God allowed Saten to tempt David, to them it is as if God did it because God needs to give permission for it to happen.

Where does it say anything about God allowing anything? You are introducing your own speculation, which has no contextual basis here. Please stick to the text.

Besides, any concept of allowance or disallowance plays no role here, because it involves the overriding of free will, and we all know that God wants unhindered free will, doesn't he?