The Folly of Atheism, part 2

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Feb 18, 2017.

  1. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either you are mellowing or atheists are mellowing. I haven't seen any hate quotes full of cusswords directed to you from atheists in this forum.

    On further reflection...there may have been some that said "You are just full of $hit". Would you consider that a hate quote?
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if that can be stated absolutely.. he was not one of the 12 disciples, but to claim he 'never met Jesus' is not substantiated, either.

    There is actually some evidence, implied or traditional, that Mark may have known Jesus, & was involved with the disciples. this from wiki:

    Identifying Mark the Evangelist with John Mark also led to identifying him as the man who carried water to the house where the Last Supper took place (Mark 14:13),[24] or as the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51–52).[25]

    The Coptic Church accords with identifying Mark the Evangelist with John Mark, as well as that he was one of the Seventy Disciples sent out by Christ (Luke 10:1), as Hippolytus confirmed.[26] Coptic tradition also holds that Mark the Evangelist hosted the disciples in his house after Jesus' death, that the resurrected Jesus Christ came to Mark's house (John 20), and that the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost in the same house.[26] Furthermore, Mark is also believed to have been among the servants at the Marriage at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus turned to wine (John 2:1–11).[26]
     
  3. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's all just evolution (not to be confused with ToE). Quarks to basic atoms to heavier atoms to basic molecules to bigger molecules to cells to roaches.
     
  4. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On one point I have a big problem with religions, it's about God.

    Nobody met the old man.

    So some people tend to speak in name of god.

    People who speak in name of god in a way identify to god and so think as is they were god.

    That's not really an argument who can prove or disprove the existence of anything. However, I tend to think that believing in god is somehow extremly arrogant, because most but not all believers can identify as god.

    I don't know if I'm really clear ? English is not my native language and the idea I want to exprimate can be slighty subtle.
     
  5. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Believing" (or guessing) that gods exist is not arrogant.

    "Believing" (or guessing) that no gods exist is not arrogant either.

    Pretend either is more than just a guess (about something obviously unknown) is simply lacking ethics and integrity.
     
    usfan likes this.
  6. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO!. My assertion is that if THIS universe collapses in on itself, it is the end of THIS universe.
    The other side of the possibilities also rejects your premise. As I previously stated...
    "I can fly in a spaceship in THIS (expanding) universe for an infinite period of time. I will never morph into a wobble flying in a gerqad." ​


    For the third time:
    Your conclusion is valid if and only if we accept the premise of the (highlighted) sentence which began with the word "If".

    Likewise, if A is False and A = B, then B is False.

    Show why we should accept the premise that A is true.
    Show why we should accept that the universe is interconnected and there is some grande configuration of matter and energy that is self aware.

    If you cannot, then there is no valid reason to accept your conclusion that there is a supreme God.
     
  7. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I mean is :

    How many foolish priest, imam, rabbi or pope say :

    God want that so you should act like that.

    And the people who listen those representant of god start to obey them because they think they obey god, but at the end they obey only someone who pretend to tell the will of god.

    At the end, probably nobody know the will of god, so what's the matter of the imams and the priests ? What's the matter of the bible, the quaran or the talmud ?

    Why should you make you unhappy to stop eating pork, to not divorce from a wife you feel really unhappy with for a god you never met. Because at the end, you don't make you unhappy for god, you make you unhappy for a priest who pretend to know the will of god.
     
  8. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Earlier in this thread you wrote:

    That sentence, which is an argument, begins with an "IF."

    - - - Updated - - -

    I understand your point...and I agree.

    For someone for whom English is a second language...you explained yourself very well.
     
  9. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll not deny that USFAN has accused me of that. I guess it's as good a comeback as any when one is faced with facts that go against their notions.

    got·cha
    ˈɡäCHə/
    noun
    an instance of publicly tricking someone or exposing them to ridicule, especially by means of an elaborate deception.​

    Now all you have to do is show how I tricked you.


    If that's what I did, that's not trickery.

    OK. Darwin was fringe. Hubble was fringe. Watson and Krick were fringe

    Darwin used science to validate his claims. Hubble used science to validate his claims. Watson and Krick used science to validate their claims.

    Now we finally get to the gist of the matter. My reference was that you get your "knowledge" from, and base your arguments on, sources that are beyond the fringe. As I previously stated...
    I looked up Frank Joseph. He is a writer of many books. Here are some examples...
    The Lost Civilization of Lemuria
    Oral tradition in Polynesia recounts the story of Lemuria, a vast kingdom of islands and archipelagoes that once sprawled across the Pacific Ocean, but was destroyed by a mighty “warrior wave”--a tsunami. Frank Joseph offers a compelling picture of this motherland of humanity, which he suggests was the original Garden of Eden.
    Seven Secrets of Time Travel
    This book examines time travel from the viewpoint of mystics, shamanic dreamwalkers, and scientists, from Blavatsky to Einstein. It offers practical exercises to develop time travel abilities, emphasizing the spiritual wholeness that comes from energy body work.​

    Has Frank Joseph used science to validate his claims? Has he done anything to validate his claims. Do you believe The Biblical Garden of Eden was in Polynesia? Do you believe Frank Joseph has uncovered Seven Secrets of Time Travel?


    Are you referring to these "facts"?
    You are right, I didn't refute them. But you are wrong in alluding to them as "Facts".

    These are what I would refer to as blatant and trivial absurdity...
    Now please be good enough to present an example of my blatant and/or trivial absurdity.
    Also please be good enough to show how I tricked you.
     
  10. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1- My opponents know they'd never get their cusswords past this forums cuss filter, so they don't try..:)
    2- Ah, so you admit some atheists here have said I'm "full of £hit".
    I never say that about atheists, so I've seized the moral high ground around here..:)
     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess "Y = 0 or 1" would be the agnostic's viewpoint.

    X isn't about how many gods have been worshipped. X is the number of gods that are the creations of man's imaginings. There may be overlap, but they are two different things. For example TheGodOfLastThursday is a creation of man's imaginings, but I don't know anyone who worships her/him.
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, i would have no problem observing that.. but i also refrain because of moderator filters. ;) I would probably prefer more animated descriptions of hateful, irrational replies, related to human reproduction.
    I guess linking our currency symbols to our epithets is a pretty close correlation.. :D
    Both the $ and the £ are pretty much '£hit'...
     
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just a reminder, science is not in the business of "PROOF". Science is in the business of accumulating evidence to provide support for or against concepts.

    The only people who use terms like "proved" in relation to science are science deniers who say things like "No one has ever proved evolution" and "No one has ever proved the age of the earth".
     
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And, as another reminder, this seems to again illustrate your desire for 'gotcha!' words & phrases. You know i didn't mean it that way, which i put in quotes to emphasize. I was referring to other's arguments who believe, 'abiogenesis has proved naturalism!' .. a common argument (and assertion) in these forums.
     
  15. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't seem to have a dollar sign on my keyboard, but i've got a £ sign..:)
    PS- Amazingly I sometimes get compliments from atheists, for example one once said-
    "I'm an atheist and probably always will be, but you're the first person who's ever made me think about becoming a christian"
    And an atheist woman once warned her mates about me- "He's a tough nut to crack folks, don't mess with that one!"
    Right Rock?

    "C'mon, it's true, but that don't bother me, I just wanna prove somethin', I ain't no bum, it don't matter if I lose, don't matter if Brady opens my head.
    The only thing I wanna do is go the distance, that's all.
    Nobody's ever gone fifteen rounds with Brady. If I go them fifteen rounds, an' that bell rings an' I'm still standin', I'm gonna know then I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood"...

    [​IMG]
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, i for one, do not object to your levity in what is sometimes taken way too seriously. A little self deprecating humor directed at stuffy philosophers is always a welcome change.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, if philosophers come into this "Religion and Philosophy" forum I'm happy to bust their noses for them, but to avoid bloodshed I suggested to the mods that the forum should be split into two separate forums "Religion" and "Philosophy", so we could avoid each other but they never replied (sniffle)..
     
  18. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see them pretty much the same.. religion being a single aspect of the broader 'philosophy'. But if some want to discuss religion specific things, like a bible passage, or some tenet of faith, i can see how a bunch of rowdy philosophers, especially among the atheists, can disrupt things. :D It would be like trying to discuss the nuances of Manchester United in a Liverpool pub...
    ;)

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed. The Golden Rule is found in Hammurabi's law code ( 1800 BC) and many other near east legal systems such as the Hittites. Buddha mentioned this rule as did Confucius.

    In fact the emphasis that Jesus put on this rule " the rule that sums up the prophets and the law" was stated by a famous Rabbi who lived just prior to Jesus.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should link to your sources. (perhaps you forgot).

    We can not say anything "defacto/with absolute certainty" in relation to the author of Mark. We do not know for sure if either Mark the evangelist or John Mark or Mark the cousin of Barnabus is the author of the Gospel of Mark .

    What Papias said, according to Eusebius was -

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

    There are other things that suggest Mark was not from Palestine.

    At the end of the day - whether the author of Mark had ever personally heard Jesus or not - this Gospel is the closest we have to a first hand account. (albeit written at least 35 years after the death of Christ - 65 AD at the earliest)

    By the time we get to the gospel of Matt (80-100 AD) we are now getting a long way away from "first hand account". Matt uses Mark as a source document and adds a few things - and changes the story.

    The Gospel of John - written 100-120 AD is even further adrift. This gospel reflects a Church that has evolved and so have it's beliefs.

    Luke ? (80-130 AD) This is a compilation of hearsay written by an outsider to the actual events. The "seventy" for example is not mentioned in any of the other Gospels.




    When we talk about "the seventy" - there is no reference to this in any of the previous Gospels.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That last sentence was part of the post I was responding to ... accidentally left in.

    Once you get to self replicating molecules - the recent work has shown how these can be created in natural conditions - evolution takes over.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are being obtuse. Show that the moon orbiting around Pluto is not made of green cheese. (can you .. can you .... can you)

    or ... claiming that arguments beginning with "if" should not be taken seriously. Which is abject nonsense that you should at least admit to once pointed out.

    1) What premise are you referring to ( Premise A) ?
    2) Clearly the universe is interconnected
    3) I do not claim defacto that there is some grand configuration of matter than is self aware - I was merely exploring that as a possibility ( and you did not address any of my arguments for this in a rational way) so it still stands.
    4) Since some of the things you mentioned were not part of my conclusion - ( in particular Premise A .. what ever that is) I have no clue what you are talking about.
     
  23. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are absolutely right.

    Here is the comment I was responding to:

    (emphasis mine)
    What I wrote was...Would you care to comment on why anyone should take seriously an argument that begins with "IF"?
    As in: IF pigs could fly...

    However,what I should have written...Would you care to comment on why anyone should take seriously an argument that begins with "IF" followed by a nonsensical assertion?

    I did follow up my original comment with the lyrics from the song: If I were a rich man...to clarify what I meant.

    But, again, you are correct. My comment was very poorly worded.
     
  24. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks, ecco.

    You are a stellar advocate for your side. I enjoy the give and take more than you can imagine.
     
  25. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taking the road espoused by Michelle Obama.

    FWIW: $ works as a substitute for an S. The British Pound Sign? Not so well. Makes it look more like Zit.
     

Share This Page