The Religion Discussion

[RBphoto]

https://www.facebook.com/reggaedancehal ... =2&theater

[nareshseep]

[nareshseep]

Nevertheless maybe the hope is repeat a lie long enough and strong enough and it might become true.

Quite true, thats what religion is, a lie repeated over countless generations and widely accepted by the masses.

You cannot convince a 100 % theist that gawd is imaginary AND
You cannot convince an 100 % atheist that gawd is not imaginary.
Therefore the default position is purely agnostic ie

Habit7 and mecalli demonstrates from their viewpoint that they are gnostic theists.
I am a pagan gnostic atheist.




If you are not 100% sure of the existence of gawd, then there is a % of you that believes gawd does not exist. And agnostic atheists and agnostic theist can be grouped together.


Atheism is the non-belief of ALL gawds.
Every theist is a partial atheist, since they believe in their gawd but the non existence of other gawds. The opposite of (poly)atheism is belief in all gawds (polytheist), If you are not a polytheist you are a partial theist/atheist. The majority of theist are gnostic theist and of atheists the majority are agnostic atheists.

[nareshseep]

[meccalli]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines atheism as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athei ... sticism/#3 So living a life consistent with that belief is the doctrine of atheism. That is why those in the survey who affirm atheism yet believe in deities violates the doctrine, the statement, the structure, the teaching and breaks the canon.

You can say it has no doctrine, or it is a lack of belief but so far those statements all have been emanations from your thought process with which I can't contend. But even though you have glossed over my references thus far, here are some more:

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).

Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987)

Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God" (Charles Darwin's Letter to Rev. J Fordyc, July 7, 1879)

I understand what you are trying to do you know. But I wouldn't couch to the pop-atheist redefinition of the stakes involved. Atheists know that their position who require equal if not superior evidential support than the theist's position, and rather than dig their heals in and stand their ground...they punt to "a lack of belief" and no doctrine. It kinda a pathetic retreat to the land of agnosticism.

Nevertheless maybe the hope is repeat a lie long enough and strong enough and it might become true.

your hope?

you can twist it how much you like. I understand where your confusion with my argument comes from though. It is impossible to mention atheism without mentioning theism, the name itself has the word theism in it. Just like it is impossible to say you have zero apples, without mentioning apples, so in your simple way YOU argue that the concept therefore is based on apples. Zero apples is not an apple and atheism is not a belief or a religion, it is the absence of it.

[York]

The doctrine of "I BELIEVE BUT I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANYTHING (LAWS) 'CAUSE GOD KILLED HIMSELF TO SAVE MY SINS". Is this the doctrine of Habit7?

[Habit7]

your hope?

you can twist it how much you like. I understand where your confusion with my argument comes from though. It is impossible to mention atheism without mentioning theism, the name itself has the word theism in it. Just like it is impossible to say you have zero apples, without mentioning apples, so in your simple way YOU argue that the concept therefore is based on apples. Zero apples is not an apple and atheism is not a belief or a religion, it is the absence of it.

Well just to recap, you claim that atheism has no doctrine or dogma yet you call out atheists who believe in deities. You continue to deny that atheism has doctrine or dogma in spite the many references countering that view. Your only hope is in redefining the term.

BTW, wrt to your apples analogy, a correct reflection would be that theist believes in one apple or more than one apple. An atheist believes in "zero apples." Both should be able to justify the quantity they hold to. One who "lacks faith" shouldn't care how many apples there are.

However if they are forwarding the idea of zero apples then it is not they lack faith, they believe in the negative assertion of zero apples, which is atheist not a lack of faith.

[nareshseep]

ROFL ... the point still is that the apples imaginary ... and yuh trying to convince a next guy that there is a apple, but yuh cyah see it... yuh juss have to believe... Sadly, however there are some folks who are gullible and fall for it.

Next thing a man go tell me folks who don't play football are sportsmen.

[Slartibartfast]

I think Habit just ended all future arguments there by proving Duane's point better than anyone else can.

So Habit you are saying that you believe what you believe regardless of concrete evidence to support your claim.

[MG Man]

habit is as habit does

[Habit7]

ROFL ... the point still is that the apples imaginary

Of course you think it is imaginary...when you reject all my arguments for its existence.

But you are obviously not nonchalant about the claim, you either reject the claim on the basis of irrational opposition or superior argument, which in your case, takes the form of meme.

So Habit you are saying that you believe what you believe regardless of concrete evidence to support your claim.

Where is my statement did I give such a notion esp. when I said

Both should be able to justify the quantity they hold to.

[Slartibartfast]

So Habit you are saying that you believe what you believe regardless of concrete evidence to support your claim.

Where is my statement did I give such a notion esp. when I said

BTW, wrt to your apples analogy, a correct reflection would be that theist believes in one apple or more than one apple.

Why?

The atheist believes there is no apple because there is no apple

The theist believe that the apple exists because there is no way that the apple cannot exist considering their hands are perfectly shaped to hold the apple, therefore their hands must have been made for the apple. Meaning the apple exists (otherwise why would they have hands).

The agnostic believes there may be an apple because it is highly unlikely that such a large number of people can be fooled that easily. Therefore there may be some truth to what they believe.

The atheist understands the difference between improbable and impossible and know that although it is improbable that the majority of the world's population may be ignorant to something... it's clearly not impossible (especially considering that many of the people had the faith beaten into them so severely during slavery that their great grand children still believe the fairy tales to be truth so strongly that they come on trinituner to argue about it)

Both should be able to justify the quantity they hold to.

In most cases it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore the onus is on the theist to prove the existence of their God (a cliche I know but relevant nonetheless).

The "proof" at best is cherry picked and conclusions manipulated to fit the answer that theists want (completely opposite to science, which is also partly why science and religion are frequently pit against each other)

[Habit7]

You still aint answer what in my statement says "believe regardless of concrete evidence."

The atheist believes there is no apple because there is no apple

You are committing the fallacy of presumption. You already presume that the atheist is right because there is absolutely no apple. But to say so would mean that the atheist has absolute knowledge of the tree/bucket/farm/town/country/planet/universe to say there is absolutely no apple.

The agnostic says there maybe an apple, who knows?

The theist says there is an apple, and in the case of the Christian theist I have laid out the evidence for why I believe so.

So for the atheist to claim absolutely that there is no apple, he has a responsibility to defend his position. This is a case where you have to prove something doesn't exist because you are absolute in your claim. If you can't defend it then, call yourself an agnostic not atheist.

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry that was a typo. I meant "regardless of not having concrete evidence to support your claim. Everything should make sense now.

As for the rest of what you said, It's a basic argument that has come up many times. The burden of proof will always lie with the person asserting that something exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
This is an argument by Carl Sagan (That I am sure you already know of). Why don't you go ahead and prove that the dragon does not exist. Pretend he actually believed that everything he said was true.

[Slartibartfast]

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder

This is what make some people switch from agnosticism to atheism. They realise that something as silly as religion and theism does not warrant the wasting of one's time just because it cannot be disproved. Also, just because it cannot be disproved does not mean that there is truth to it.

Ironically, atheists will waste time trying to get others to see this. Probably because the negative effects of religion are so evident.

[Habit7]

You admitting your typo still doesnt give me an answer.



I logically explained Duane's whole bad apple analogy and rather than refute we jumping to another analogy?

So what if you have a dragon in your garage? I hope all goes well, your dragon doesn't affect me. God, however, the immaterial, eternal, transcendent, causal being of all that exists, isnt an invisible dragon in your garage. He is God of all the universe, and he has placed demands on all of us.

You and I can't even write a sentence properly without any "typos" but you want to subject God to your 'high' standards of perception? You want evidence for God, you are living in it. The fact that we have an organised, empirical study called science is evidence of a Almighty God, not time+matter+chance.

[Slartibartfast]

wait... how exactly is that evidence of God?

[RBphoto]

wait... how exactly is that evidence of God?

Because "GOD" you moron!!!! Sheesh... God iz God!!

[Habit7]

Only under a theistic worldview can we account for the immaterial criteria of law of causality, logic and the reliability of observation, which one must accept before one engages in science. The atheistic worldview cannot account for these, if not prove them as the outworking of random chance and shouldn't be relied on.

As an atheist you have to borrow axioms from a theistic worldview to conduct science, all through which you hope to invalid the theistic worldview.

One of your best evidence for God is that you were born with a ingrained belief in God, you suppressed it with faith in the universe having no causal agent, and now you shake your fist at Him like the rebel He says you are.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:18-21

Do you absolutely believe there is no God?

[Slartibartfast]

By "law of casualty" I assume you mean the origin of our universe. If that's the case you argument is degrading to the "Science can't explain it therefore God did it" cliche. As for "logic and the reliability of observation" you are going to have to be a bit less vague.

Also, considering that theistic world views are man made (assumed because you are yet to prove God exists and the onus is on you) then as an atheist any "theistic" axioms I borrow are simply axioms that humans use and theists (being a subset of human just like scientists) use them as well.

Now how do you know that I was born with an ingrained belief in God? Is it because the ignorant believe in God and I (by definition) was born ignorant?

I believe in every repeatably verifiable attribute of God, of which there are absolutely none.

[Habit7]

By "law of casualty" I assume you mean the origin of our universe. If that's the case you argument is degrading to the "Science can't explain it therefore God did it" cliche. As for "logic and the reliability of observation" you are going to have to be a bit less vague.

Also, considering that theistic world views are man made (assumed because you are yet to prove God exists and the onus is on you) then as an atheist any "theistic" axioms I borrow are simply axioms that humans use and theists (being a subset of human just like scientists) use them as well.

Now how do you know that I was born with an ingrained belief in God? Is it because the ignorant believe in God and I (by definition) was born ignorant?

I believe in every repeatably verifiable attribute of God, of which there are absolutely none.

Well the law of causality is the philosophical principle that every change in nature is produced by some cause http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 0causation so your assumption is wrong.

The theistic worldview (your lack or acquiescence to the proof is unmatched the innumerable great thinkers who have) is still consistent with empirical science. Whether or not you acknowledge the theistic principles of your worldview, the atheistic worldview still doesn't lead to study of empirical science, it should expect of chaos.

I know you where born with an ingrained belief in God because the Bible says you are and that you are without excuse. Plus you said you were.

You didn't know what immutable means, or the law of causality and you are prone to typos, but you believe you have absolute knowledge to deny the attributes of God, wow talk about chutzpah.

I am you sure have repeatedly verified the Big Bang, macroevolution and other stories you have 100% faith in.

[Slartibartfast]

Science is all about cause and effect so unless you are talking about big bang then your argument is just a false assertion with no backup information. My only mistake is that I expected you to make sense.

There are many theistic worldviews. Yours is not consistent with science. I don't know why you would want to to be anyway considering your theistic worldview remains unchanged while science continues to advance. This is just another false assertion of yours.

Lol @ your third point... really? Well if the bible says it is so then I guess there is no arguing with it. You argument is based on the wrong assumption that the bible is infallible.

Ad homiem attacks and a gross misrepresentation of my view but OK then.

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder

.... something as silly as religion and theism does not warrant the wasting of one's time just because it cannot be disproved. Also, just because it cannot be disproved does not mean that there is truth to it..

I believe in every repeatably verifiable attribute of God, of which there are absolutely none.

Clearly you don't understand the approach of science where it is OK to be wrong. You work with what you have to get closer and closer to the truth. We have advanced at an exponential rate over the past century and show no sign of stopping compared to religion where you guys rely on science more that religion and God everyday and yet turn up your nose at science and continue to worship your God. It's like a terminal cast of Stockholm syndrome.

Anyway. Let me know when you have actual arguments to make as opposed to opinions, false assertions, sidesteps and ad hominem attacks.

[Habit7]

You honestly didn't read my previous post. So let me cliffs note it for you, please address them.


The law of causality is that every effect has a cause, the theory of the Big Bang is an effect not a cause.

Atheism points to an unregulated world, contrary to the regulated world we see in science where laws don't evolve, they come into existence complexed and unchanging.

You said you were a born Catholic (I hope that is not the ad hominem you are accusing me of).

To say that something is absolutely nonexistent then you will have to have absolute knowledge, something you have proven before to fall woefully short of.

[MD Marketers]

I'm directing this to the Muslim population of tuner.
Please read & answer the questions honestly.

Why should Muslims follow the Hadiths?
Is Islam derived from the Qur'an or traditions/cultures of Muslim people?
Do you believe the collections of hadith by Bukhari and Moslim are the authentic words and teachings of prophet Muhammad?
Do you know why Scholars claim these hadith are authentic?
Do scholars claim a hadith is genuine if the chain of narrators (over 1400 years ago) all had a good character (were perfectly honest & had infallible memory)
How do scholars claim a hadith is genuine?
How can scholars prove hadith narrators had a good character?
Is believing in Hadith a form of "blind faith"?
Do you believe in blind faith?
Do you believe the Qur'an is the un-corrupted word of God?
Does the Qur'an say you should believe in blind faith?

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying (out of ignorance, conjecture and assumption). )(Quran, 6:116)

Does the Qur'an say anything about believing in any other literature other than the Qur'an?

"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet human and jinn devils to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications." 6:112

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbour any doubt.
The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." 6:114-115

"This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions." 6:113

Would Bukhari & Moslim Hadiths be classified as literature other than the Qur'an?
Do scholars agree the Prophet prohibited hadith to be written during his life time other than the Qur'an?

"Do not write down anything of me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed, Vol. 1, page 171.....also Sahih Muslim )

Is the Sunnah of Mohammed mentioned in the Qur'an?
Can you show just one verse where the Sunnah of Mohammed is mentioned in the Qur'an?
Was the writing of hadith prohibited for the first 200 years after the death of the Prophet (historically)
Do you think it's possible it was prohibited because the prophet prohibited it?
After answering all the questions do you think a Muslim can still be a Muslim by only following the Qur'an & not Bukhari's/Moslem's Hadiths or a combination of both is required for you to be a True Muslim?

Thanks for reading.

Please post your answers below.

Regards,

Shane

[Slartibartfast]

You honestly didn't read my previous post. So let me cliffs note it for you, please address them.


The law of causality is that every effect has a cause, the theory of the Big Bang is an effect not a cause.

Atheism points to an unregulated world, contrary to the regulated world we see in science where laws don't evolve, they come into existence complexed and unchanging.

You said you were a born Catholic (I hope that is not the ad hominem you are accusing me of).

To say that something is absolutely nonexistent then you will have to have absolute knowledge, something you have proven before to fall woefully short of.

So what is your point about the law of causality? I only mentioned the big bang because it is a major effect for which the cause is unknown. I was trying to help you develop your own argument to offer me a bit of a challenge. Like I said, I made a mistake expecting you to have a structured argument. You are clearly regurgitating what you have read elsewhere.

Now how exactly does atheism point to an unregulated world? It sounds like you assume without reason that God is the only thing that can create a "regulated" world.

Now being born Catholic means I was born into a Catholic family. It doesn't mean I was ingrained with innate knowledge of God. If fact that knowledge was all passed on to me by my parents.

And like I said. I believe in every repeatably verifiable attribute of God.

Lastly, even if what you said about me was true, it is possible to have absolute knowledge in one thing and not have absolute knowledge in something else.

Anyway I'm interested to see what the Islamic discussion has to provide as you are no longer able to provide anything of substance. Just weak arguments with no facts to back them up and false assertions brought about by your own misunderstandings. I even tried to help you develop your argument but it seems the individual thought required was too great. I am truly sorry that I overestimated you.

[Habit7]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space. You have to say it's unknown because you rely on your perception of scientific concensus to deem truth. But science cannot determine all truth, in fact it relies on several unprovable axioms.

Atheism does point a unregulated world. If you are however agreeing that the world is regulated, only intelligent minds can regulate (add rules) something. You see why I say you have to borrow from the theist worldview to attack it?

Your parents could only instructed you down a religious path but you were borne with innate knowledge of God. Your parents religious interstruction just fit into to your teleological quest to explain your world because you by design had to sense of your world. Even if your parents were atheist they would have to explain the world using atheist alternatives. Nevertheless, you innately desire to know God, sadly you were maligned.

You claim there are no verifiable attributes of God yet you claim that the cause of the Big Bang is unknown....you see how you fall short in absolute knowledge about these things?

[nareshseep]

All we have are theories to explain our universe, which may be hold or not, only the future will tell. Religion is a theory that mankind hopes to be true.Energy cannot be created or destroyed, E=mc^2, therefore matter as well cannot be destroyed but changed from one form to another. What if there was no big bang?

An atom has a lot of unoccupied space, and even if there was a big bang then all the matter that exists in the universe can be compressed into the size of one atom. Something came from something. What started all this? Theist say gawd did it, and Atheist say we do not know at this point in time. How ever when we delve into quantum level we have sub sub atomic particles that do not obey the general laws of physics.

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space.

Gawd would have to abide by the law of causality as well, the law of causality would ask then what caused gawd to be created? And then if we found out what, we would have to ask what created the creator of gawd...

[meccalli]

Given the current state of the concepts of mass energy and entropy, we know the universe has a cause as it points to itself being created. Things seem explainable on the surface, the more science digs into the foundation of existence, the constants and checks that must exist become impossible to fathom. God by definition exists outside of time as well as the physical universe. Uncreated, eternal and everlasting.

[nareshseep]

Given the current state of the concepts of mass energy and entropy, we know the universe has a cause as it points to itself being created. Things seem explainable on the surface, the more science digs into the foundation of existence, the constants and checks that must exist become impossible to fathom. God by definition exists outside of time as well as the physical universe. Uncreated, eternal and everlasting.

Interesting theory put forward, to the atheist it would seem as a justification for gawd being an imaginary being. If gawd is an entity humans cannot understand then no one can know gawd.