God replacement theory, aka atheism.

[felix dakat]

I used stardust to illustrate the fact that common sense is an inadequate guide for explaining natural phenomena. I did not mean to imply that star dust is connected to the ultimate origin of everything what, it seems, you understood me to be arguing.

It doesn't look like you've shown that common sense is really inadequate guide for explaining "natural phenomena". Because first it would come down to what is the criterion for an explanation itself, which seems tough to answer. Second, it would look like start-dust doesn't really say much, but just going beyond what we could actually find it, which is like trying to come up with some "ultimate origin", while that is way more theoretical, in the sense that it goes beyond a simpler common sense answer.

It took more than common sense to design the computers and internet by which we are communicating. So a valid criterion for an adequate explanation for a phenomenon might be when you can control it. It took more than common sense to develop the chemistry whereby we can trace the elements back to the stars from whence they came. That finding has been replicated by multiple sources. So another criteria for an explanation could be when it makes prediction that are replicated. Your second statement doesn't seem to be coherent. My point all along has been that we don't have an explanation for the ultimate origin. I don't know what you're banana-dancing about.

[Moreno]

I used stardust to illustrate the fact that common sense is an inadequate guide for explaining natural phenomena. I did not mean to imply that star dust is connected to the ultimate origin of everything what, it seems, you understood me to be arguing.

It doesn't look like you've shown that common sense is really inadequate guide for explaining "natural phenomena". Because first it would come down to what is the criterion for an explanation itself, which seems tough to answer. Second, it would look like start-dust doesn't really say much, but just going beyond what we could actually find it, which is like trying to come up with some "ultimate origin", while that is way more theoretical, in the sense that it goes beyond a simpler common sense answer.

Common sense would not have come up with a near spherical world, genetic mutation, particles that are also waves, that migrating birds use the quantum zeno effect along with the earth's magentic field to navigate and so on.

[Chester]

To say "I don't know how the universe began" is obviously less faith based then just making up an answer because you're uncomfortable with your own ignorance. Atheists don't just make up answers to scientific questions, that's why it's less faith based.

If you believe the universe was caused by a mindless act of creation, or that it is infinite (ie, has no cause), then you have faith in a made up answer .

I didn't give an answer, so I didn't make up one. Neither you nor I know how the universe was created. The difference is that you pretend you know. I don't. I'm comfortable with the fact that I don't know. It doesn't tear me up inside to not know. It doesn't tempt me to want to make up an answer just to get rid of that feeling of insecurity. There is no insecurity for me, that's why I don't make up an answer.

Why does it bother you so much that people don't believe in god?

If you don't believe in God then you believe the world is caused by a mindless process. You have simply replaced one belief with another...the only difference is that your creative force (chance) is much more limited than the God idea, plus there is no proof of chance's creative abilities, whereas there is plenty of proof for the abilities of conscious intent.

[Chester]

Chester--

My point is that there is no more reason for believing that the world is a mindless creation than a mindful one, both ideas require faith ...faith in the ability of mindless chance versus faith in the ability of conscious intent.

My position doesn't seem to require faith, just an admission of our present state of knowledge. Our true epistemological situation with regard to the origin of the universe is one of ignorance. Furthermore, the situation is not likely to change any time soon. We may never know. The origin of everything may always be beyond human comprehension. It's the great mystery.

Obviously conscious intent can produce such complex , balanced, systems so it is a good possible explanation, whereas
we don't have the same proof that mindless chance can produce such systems.

Natural selection produces complex, balanced systems without conscious intent.

So even though we can not fully explain God, He is certainly a reasonable explanation...and we don't have to fully explain an explanation for it to be reasonable.

A God with a mind complex enough to create the universe hardly gets us closer to an explanation. For having to explain how a super intelligent being always existed without a beginning is a task no less arduous than explaining how a complex universe came to exist. You just pushed the problem back a generation.

Atheism itself doesn't explain anything, but it does require faith in the ability of unthinking chance to produce something far more balanced and complex than a v12 engine, ie, the world, and there is no evidence that the world(universe) is eternal, in fact current thinking is that it had a start .

Atheism may not explain anything, but neither have you. It doesn't require faith to recognize that how the universe came to be is a mystery beyond human understanding. Our local universe seems to have started with a big bang, but it doesn't follow from that that nothing existed before the big bang. Something coming from nothing is as impossible to understand as something having no beginning at all.

There is less faith required in believing the creative powers of intent than in believing in the creative ability of chance.

How do you know that natural selection isn't a program (ie, written by a will) ?

When we believe in God as being a good explanation of this world it is not necessary that we need to completely explain God. As you say, some things are probably beyond our understanding, but that does not impinge upon their reasonableness as answers.

Maybe key to this is the concept of the infinite.If the infinite exists, then why not God as a natural (inevitable?) product of it?

[Chester]

Agnosticism is an awful position philosophically. Rhetorically, it is nice. But that it all, it is a rhetorical, not philosophical, position.

As for atheists requiring faith, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how metanarratives work here. A negation of a dominant metanarrative does not constitute a metanarrative. Atheism qua atheism doesn't make sense and, thankfully, doesn't exist. Instead atheism (like theism) exists within a broader philosophical network. Christians aren't "theists" in the same way that most Hindus are "theists" in the same way that Pagans aren't "theists". All those positions involve and include various positions that are in varying degrees of conflict with one another. Likewise, atheists are a broad bunch. Generally when "atheist" is used as an identifier, what is meant is "New Atheists" in the same way that "theist" (when used in an English language context such as ILP) generally means "Christian" but in some cases can be expanded to include Muslims. As with any philosophy, you can't abstract New Atheism down to one position (particularly a negative one!) and claim to understand it. Atheists don't believe in god, God, or gods. But what do they believe in and why?

This is often a difficult perspective for members of an orthodox religion to understand. As the name implies, orthodoxy begins with belief and proceeds from there. In the case of Christianity, it is a belief that there is one God who made everything, that Jesus is begotten not made of the God the Father, that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit. That is the starting point. From that starting point, Christians are forced to conclude that gods like Pan or Amaterasu don't exist. But that is a secondary factor, it procedes from the givens. Christians don't have faith that Pan doesn't exist. They have faith that their god does. Because of their givens, they conclude that Pan doesn't exist.

See how that works?

Atheists certainly do require faith if they believe that this world is caused by chance.

The atheist god is chance.

[Calrid]

Agnosticism is an awful position philosophically. Rhetorically, it is nice. But that it all, it is a rhetorical, not philosophical, position.

As for atheists requiring faith, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how metanarratives work here. A negation of a dominant metanarrative does not constitute a metanarrative. Atheism qua atheism doesn't make sense and, thankfully, doesn't exist. Instead atheism (like theism) exists within a broader philosophical network. Christians aren't "theists" in the same way that most Hindus are "theists" in the same way that Pagans aren't "theists". All those positions involve and include various positions that are in varying degrees of conflict with one another. Likewise, atheists are a broad bunch. Generally when "atheist" is used as an identifier, what is meant is "New Atheists" in the same way that "theist" (when used in an English language context such as ILP) generally means "Christian" but in some cases can be expanded to include Muslims. As with any philosophy, you can't abstract New Atheism down to one position (particularly a negative one!) and claim to understand it. Atheists don't believe in god, God, or gods. But what do they believe in and why?

This is often a difficult perspective for members of an orthodox religion to understand. As the name implies, orthodoxy begins with belief and proceeds from there. In the case of Christianity, it is a belief that there is one God who made everything, that Jesus is begotten not made of the God the Father, that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit. That is the starting point. From that starting point, Christians are forced to conclude that gods like Pan or Amaterasu don't exist. But that is a secondary factor, it procedes from the givens. Christians don't have faith that Pan doesn't exist. They have faith that their god does. Because of their givens, they conclude that Pan doesn't exist.

See how that works?

Atheists certainly do require faith if they believe that this world is caused by chance.

The atheist god is chance.

We have had these discussions before, you still think atheists or whatever bugbear du jour think the Universe evolved by chance so I'll just say given enough monkeys and enough typewriters eventually they will write Shakespeare. Science doesn't think the universe evolved by chance any more than atheists do, not if they know what the hell they are talking about. Science needs evidence, anything beyond the universe may always be speculation. There is no cause to believe there is a God any more than there are multiple universes, but they and many other ideas cannot be discarded by science, that is up to philosophy.

The atheist god is chance.

No there is no God of atheism they are a varied bunch, if they had to look up to anything it would be reason and evidence.

[Trajicomic]

The atheist god is chance.

No there is no God of atheism they are a varied bunch, if they had to look up to anything it would be reason and evidence.

You are both correct.

The Gods of Atheism include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. "Fortuna" or Luck, as in, "Good Luck to you!" This is an atheist (pagan) blessing another atheist (pagan).
2. "Reason" or Socrates. Atheists generally look to "Socrates" as their main prophet and spiritual leader.
3. "Science" or Newton. Atheists generally look to "Isaac Newton" as another main prophet and spiritual leader.

Atheists usually appeal (logical fallacy) to "Luck" (opposed to Fate), "Reason" (opposed to Emotion), and "Science" (opposed to common sense).

Atheists are very dishonest and stupid people, in my personal opinion. Some atheists are intelligent and smart, but, not many. I don't mean to offend atheists, but this is just my honest interpretation.

Atheists are easily confused with Polytheists, because both atheists and polytheists believe in multiple "gods" or "forms" of gods.

[Calrid]

The atheist god is chance.

No there is no God of atheism they are a varied bunch, if they had to look up to anything it would be reason and evidence.

You are both correct.

The Gods of Atheism include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. "Fortuna" or Luck, as in, "Good Luck to you!" This is an atheist (pagan) blessing another atheist (pagan).
2. "Reason" or Socrates. Atheists generally look to "Socrates" as their main prophet and spiritual leader.
3. "Science" or Newton. Atheists generally look to "Isaac Newton" as another main prophet and spiritual leader.

Atheists usually appeal (logical fallacy) to "Luck" (opposed to Fate), "Reason" (opposed to Emotion), and "Science" (opposed to common sense).

Atheists are very dishonest and stupid people, in my personal opinion. Some atheists are intelligent and smart, but, not many. I don't mean to offend atheists, but this is just my honest interpretation.

Atheists are easily confused with Polytheists, because both atheists and polytheists believe in multiple "gods" or "forms" of gods.

Pagans are not atheists?

I don't think you know what an atheist is, or your doing a pretty poor job of explaining them. An atheist believes there are no gods, that's it. No mythical spirit beings no magic fairies.

You don't get around much then, most are of my friends are atheists, ah hell who am I trying to kid they all are, most of them have a PhD in a scientific field one in physics who is now a researcher on fluid dynamics, maths particularly the Navier-Stokes equations, one in physics of gamma ray astronomy, one in pharmacology, one in chemistry. Most of them know about the issue of religion, some care some don't. My friends are all extremely clever, I have to keep up with them. I do not think that atheists are stupid in fact as evidence atheists tend to have a higher IQ than theists in general, I can link that if you want. That doesn't mean they are smarter it just means they tend to go into education more, succeed in said fields, and in doing so tend to be more likely to be well paid.

Atheists do not look to Socrates for anything, some atheists might but many think philosophy is a waste of time, some don't. The pharmacologist has a blinding collection of philosophical literature.

Isaac Newton? Are you cereal? If an atheist happens to understand physics he looks to reason first and to giants in the field second, science is progressive, Newton whilst accurate on Earth is not accurate in the cosmos.

Atheists may or may not believe in luck, me personally I think there is chance and there is putting yourself in the right place to be more "lucky" ie to gain from a situation. Atheists generally I would not know, suffice to say none of my friends are great believers in luck. Effort perhaps, perhaps that's why they are successful?

[Trajicomic]

I am more used to Monotheism (One God) and Duotheism (Two Gods: God and Satan), Calrid, forgive me.

Atheists like to claim (Zero Gods), but this is false. Atheists believe in "luck", "reason", "science", as I mentioned. This is the atheistic "faith". Atheists are very faithful believers in their dogmas.

Polytheists are european pagans, and most older, ancient peoples are polytheistic (Three or More Gods.... Ra the Sun God, Thor, Jupiter, etc) Believing in many different "gods" is polytheistic.

I do confuse atheists and polytheists. They are different, but both uncommon and rare. European pagans can be easily confused as either polytheists or atheists.

Judaic Jews are Monotheists, pretending to be "atheists". But Judaic jews just want to "fit into" western culture and civilization, because they are foreign.

[Calrid]

I am more used to Monotheism (One God) and Duotheism (Two Gods: God and Satan), Calrid, forgive me.

Atheists like to claim (Zero Gods), but this is false. Atheists believe in "luck", "reason", "science", as I mentioned. This is the atheistic "faith". Atheists are very faithful believers in their dogmas.

Polytheists are european pagans, and most older, ancient peoples are polytheistic (Three or More Gods.... Ra the Sun God, Thor, Jupiter, etc) Believing in many different "gods" is polytheistic.

I do confuse atheists and polytheists. They are different, but both uncommon and rare. European pagans can be easily confused as either polytheists or atheists.

Judaic Jews are Monotheists, pretending to be "atheists". But Judaic jews just want to "fit into" western culture and civilization, because they are foreign.

Name an atheist dogma?

[Trajicomic]

Name an atheist dogma?

Only one? How about several??

"Socrates was a reasonable man."

"Emotional people shouldn't be in positions of power."

"That's a logical fallacy, therefore invalid."

"Listen to your reason!"

"Good luck to you, have a good day."

"What do the (scientific) facts say about topic X?"

"Physicists are the ultimate authority on everything."

"The Scientific Method."

[Calrid]

Name an atheist dogma?

Only one? How about several??

"Socrates was a reasonable man."

"Emotional people shouldn't be in positions of power."

"That's a logical fallacy, therefore invalid."

"Listen to your reason!"

"Good luck to you, have a good day."

"What do the (scientific) facts say about topic X?"

"Physicists are the ultimate authority on everything."

"The Scientific Method."

?

Huh I said name a specific thing all atheists believe in as dogma, not real off some stuff about something someone said as a sound bite. I know atheists who think science is flawed beyond reason. Hell one of my friends spends much of his time saying that science doesn't explain a hell of a lot.

Physicists are the ultimate authority on everything? When did that happen, who said it and why. Physicists are the ultimate authority on natural science, being as everything boils down to the nature of the universe; however physicists will admit they don't know all the answers as yet, and may never do so. That's a far cry from saying they are an authority on everything?

Atheists say God damn it, does that mean they are theists, if an atheist says good luck and doesn't really beleive in luck, isn't he just doing that because it's a social cliché. Look at volchok he doesn't believe in chance, he's a determinist and an atheist, gonna tell him he thinks luck plays any part in his life?

"Emotional people shouldn't be in positions of power."

What who isn't emotional? Spok?

[Moreno]

I am more used to Monotheism (One God) and Duotheism (Two Gods: God and Satan), Calrid, forgive me.

Atheists like to claim (Zero Gods), but this is false. Atheists believe in "luck", "reason", "science", as I mentioned. This is the atheistic "faith". Atheists are very faithful believers in their dogmas.

Polytheists are european pagans, and most older, ancient peoples are polytheistic (Three or More Gods.... Ra the Sun God, Thor, Jupiter, etc) Believing in many different "gods" is polytheistic.

I do confuse atheists and polytheists. They are different, but both uncommon and rare. European pagans can be easily confused as either polytheists or atheists.

Judaic Jews are Monotheists, pretending to be "atheists". But Judaic jews just want to "fit into" western culture and civilization, because they are foreign.

Name an atheist dogma?

It's not fully universal, but generally atheists have dogmas about epistemology.

[felix dakat]

There is less faith required in believing the creative powers of intent than in believing in the creative ability of chance.

That's a False Dilemma-- a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:   1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). 2. Claim Y is false. 3. Therefore claim X is true.   This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. Neither intent nor chance explain how something can come from nothing or how something can exist eternally without a beginning.

How do you know that natural selection isn't a program (ie, written by a will) ?

Because by definition natural selection occurs naturally. A program written by a will is not natural selection.

When we believe in God as being a good explanation of this world it is not necessary that we need to completely explain God.

If I tell you that my car wouldn't start so I had it towed to a mechanic who fixed it, but I can't tell you what was wrong or what he did to correct the situation, I haven't explained how the car was fixed. All I would know is that once the car wouldn't start and now it does. All we know is that the universe appears to be here. We have no information about whether it came to be here out of nothing or has existed eternally. And, unlike my mechanic analogy, we don't know if an intelligent agency was behind it or not.

As you say, some things are probably beyond our understanding, but that does not impinge upon their reasonableness as answers.

How do we reason about something that is beyond our understanding? The reasonable thing to do is to admit that we don't understand it.

Maybe key to this is the concept of the infinite.If the infinite exists, then why not God as a natural (inevitable?) product of it?

Infinite is an unlimited quantity of something. If an unlimited quantity of something exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that God, the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe exists.

[Calrid]

I am more used to Monotheism (One God) and Duotheism (Two Gods: God and Satan), Calrid, forgive me.

Atheists like to claim (Zero Gods), but this is false. Atheists believe in "luck", "reason", "science", as I mentioned. This is the atheistic "faith". Atheists are very faithful believers in their dogmas.

Polytheists are european pagans, and most older, ancient peoples are polytheistic (Three or More Gods.... Ra the Sun God, Thor, Jupiter, etc) Believing in many different "gods" is polytheistic.

I do confuse atheists and polytheists. They are different, but both uncommon and rare. European pagans can be easily confused as either polytheists or atheists.

Judaic Jews are Monotheists, pretending to be "atheists". But Judaic jews just want to "fit into" western culture and civilization, because they are foreign.

Name an atheist dogma?

It's not fully universal, but generally atheists have dogmas about epistemology.

Such as?

It's only true that if you pervert the meaning of atheist to something it is not, then yes atheists are beievers in not believing something. It's a waste of time doing so though, time that could be better spent attacking the real enemies of religion simple reasoning and plain logic. Oh and Denettkins, the ultimate robot religion fighting machine, with the biological astuteness of Dawkins and the legendary special powers of oration and philosophy of Denett.

[Chester]

Agnosticism is an awful position philosophically. Rhetorically, it is nice. But that it all, it is a rhetorical, not philosophical, position.

As for atheists requiring faith, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how metanarratives work here. A negation of a dominant metanarrative does not constitute a metanarrative. Atheism qua atheism doesn't make sense and, thankfully, doesn't exist. Instead atheism (like theism) exists within a broader philosophical network. Christians aren't "theists" in the same way that most Hindus are "theists" in the same way that Pagans aren't "theists". All those positions involve and include various positions that are in varying degrees of conflict with one another. Likewise, atheists are a broad bunch. Generally when "atheist" is used as an identifier, what is meant is "New Atheists" in the same way that "theist" (when used in an English language context such as ILP) generally means "Christian" but in some cases can be expanded to include Muslims. As with any philosophy, you can't abstract New Atheism down to one position (particularly a negative one!) and claim to understand it. Atheists don't believe in god, God, or gods. But what do they believe in and why?

This is often a difficult perspective for members of an orthodox religion to understand. As the name implies, orthodoxy begins with belief and proceeds from there. In the case of Christianity, it is a belief that there is one God who made everything, that Jesus is begotten not made of the God the Father, that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit. That is the starting point. From that starting point, Christians are forced to conclude that gods like Pan or Amaterasu don't exist. But that is a secondary factor, it procedes from the givens. Christians don't have faith that Pan doesn't exist. They have faith that their god does. Because of their givens, they conclude that Pan doesn't exist.

See how that works?

Atheists certainly do require faith if they believe that this world is caused by chance.

The atheist god is chance.

We have had these discussions before, you still think atheists or whatever bugbear du jour think the Universe evolved by chance so I'll just say given enough monkeys and enough typewriters eventually they will write Shakespeare. Science doesn't think the universe evolved by chance any more than atheists do, not if they know what the hell they are talking about. Science needs evidence, anything beyond the universe may always be speculation. There is no cause to believe there is a God any more than there are multiple universes, but they and many other ideas cannot be discarded by science, that is up to philosophy.

The atheist god is chance.

No there is no God of atheism they are a varied bunch, if they had to look up to anything it would be reason and evidence.

The whole "evolve" thing is a red herring . The most logical reason for the fact that atoms have formed life, that life can think about stuff like God, is that they were "programmed" to do so.The laws of nature are a program is the simplest, most reasonable ,explanation of their existence (though not necessarily the correct one).

The evidence for a conscious cause of the Universe is all around us...will is an integral part of the existence of complex balanced systems (like the laws of nature).

[Chester]

There is less faith required in believing the creative powers of intent than in believing in the creative ability of chance.

That's a False Dilemma-- a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:   1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). 2. Claim Y is false. 3. Therefore claim X is true.   This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. Neither intent nor chance explain how something can come from nothing or how something can exist eternally without a beginning.

How do you know that natural selection isn't a program (ie, written by a will) ?

Because by definition natural selection occurs naturally. A program written by a will is not natural selection.

When we believe in God as being a good explanation of this world it is not necessary that we need to completely explain God.

If I tell you that my car wouldn't start so I had it towed to a mechanic who fixed it, but I can't tell you what was wrong or what he did to correct the situation, I haven't explained how the car was fixed. All I would know is that once the car wouldn't start and now it does. All we know is that the universe appears to be here. We have no information about whether it came to be here out of nothing or has existed eternally. And, unlike my mechanic analogy, we don't know if an intelligent agency was behind it or not.

As you say, some things are probably beyond our understanding, but that does not impinge upon their reasonableness as answers.

How do we reason about something that is beyond our understanding? The reasonable thing to do is to admit that we don't understand it.

Maybe key to this is the concept of the infinite.If the infinite exists, then why not God as a natural (inevitable?) product of it?

Infinite is an unlimited quantity of something. If an unlimited quantity of something exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that God, the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe exists.

The laws of nature are more complex than a V12 engine (V12 engines are only a small , added part of nature). Intent is a necessary part of V12 engines, it is therefore reasonable to believe that intent is required for the existence of the laws of nature (they seem to be a "program"). There is no evidence that v12 engines can form by chance.

Will is natural from your point of view, or do you believe we and other conscious beings are unnatural?

We don't need to fully understand an explanation if key parts of the explanation are useful to our understanding.God supplies the will necessary for this world, I don't need to explain what colour eyes He has.

It is true that eternity/infinity doesn't necessitate the existence of God, but it certainly raises the possibilities.

[Calrid]

The whole "evolve" thing is a red herring . The most logical reason for the fact that atoms have formed life, that life can think about stuff like God, is that they were "programmed" to do so.The laws of nature are a program is the simplest, most reasonable ,explanation of their existence (though not necessarily the correct one).

The evidence for a conscious cause of the Universe is all around us...will is an integral part of the existence of complex balanced systems (like the laws of nature).

Man you're annoying me now, you just don't listen to reason. I'm not sure I can explain the thing any way that you will understand any more. Your bias is clouding your judgement, there's no point talking to someone who is well let's face it fanatical about chance, which no atheist or scientist really believes in, evolution which is no mans (or woman's) God or anything that you seem to think is an absolute. Religion is the only thing that wields absolutes like a sword, ok they are really bad swordsmen and they tend to have butter fingers but hey!

We don't need to fully understand an explanation if key parts of the explanation are useful to our understanding.God supplies the will necessary for this world, I don't need to explain what colour eyes He has.

We do, we need to know why God is necessary, you still haven't explained it given the counter arguments I have raised.

It is true that eternity/infinity doesn't necessitate the existence of God, but it certainly raises the possibilities.

Of course it does, what it doesn't raise is the possibility of only God as a solution! Have faith my friend, and depend on it, religion is a comfort, follow it, love it, and whatever. But don't expect it to provide any answers any more than anything does.

[Trajicomic]

you just don't listen to reason.

This is the exact same fallacy when a Christian says "you just don't listen to God".

Atheists and Theists both use the same logical fallacies, each believing one is superior to the other. Reason = God, to atheists. Different words, exact same meaning. They should be synonymous.

Atheists believing themselves superior, smarter, better than theists is just ridiculous. Atheists are confused young people who don't have the experience and wisdom to know what to believe in, and why, or how. Atheists are "shadow christians", following canonical religious laws down to the letters. Atheists are "mock Christians", "Christians without saying The Word of God". I really detest this hypocritical behavior atheists have. Atheists believe in "God". They just don't "believe in" God. Do you see the difference?


I'm much more honest than both atheists, monotheists, and duotheists. I'm more open about possibilities and godhood, therefore superior than all groups together.

It is not about the "Existence of God". What is more important is the Definition of God. And, to me, only a Christ-figure, a prophet, can define God. Only supremely powerful and intelligent men, maybe 1 man per every 200 or 500 years, can be born to properly define God. Like when Christ was born. I'm awaiting the Second Coming of Christ, Our Lord Thy God. I think He will be born very soon in fact. He may already have been born, but difficult to say who or when, or what form He will manifest.

I foresee whole nations of men kneeling to devote themselves to Christ as Lord of All Man. Christians need to relearn.....remember how to kneel before Kings, Emperors, and Gods. We used to know how. But we have forgotten how.....to humble ourselves before Ubermensch, Lords, Kings.

[Calrid]

you just don't listen to reason.

This is the exact same fallacy when a Christian says "you just don't listen to God".

Atheists and Theists both use the same logical fallacies, each believing one is superior to the other. Reason = God, to atheists. Different words, exact same meaning. They should be synonymous.

Atheists believing themselves superior, smarter, better than theists is just ridiculous. Atheists are confused young people who don't have the experience and wisdom to know what to believe in, and why, or how. Atheists are "shadow christians", following canonical religious laws down to the letters. Atheists are "mock Christians", "Christians without saying The Word of God". I really detest this hypocritical behavior atheists have. Atheists believe in "God". They just don't "believe in" God. Do you see the difference?


I'm much more honest than both atheists, monotheists, and duotheists. I'm more open about possibilities and godhood, therefore superior than all groups together.

It is not about the "Existence of God". What is more important is the Definition of God. And, to me, only a Christ-figure, a prophet, can define God. Only supremely powerful and intelligent men, maybe 1 man per every 200 or 500 years, can be born to properly define God. Like when Christ was born. I'm awaiting the Second Coming of Christ, Our Lord Thy God. I think He will be born very soon in fact. He may already have been born, but difficult to say who or when, or what form He will manifest.

I foresee whole nations of men kneeling to devote themselves to Christ as Lord of All Man. Christians need to relearn.....remember how to kneel before Kings, Emperors, and Gods. We used to know how. But we have forgotten how.....to humble ourselves before Ubermensch, Lords, Kings.

And you follow the so called a fallacy with a million and one fallacies. I do not know, I do not know how things happened I don't claim to. All I claim is we can not know! Gah it's so had to talk about this when everyone expects that you have a definite opinion and science is sure. It aint no one is sure and science thrives on being wrong. How hard is this to explain, and why don't you for a change attack what people actually think about reason and science?

I'm much more honest than both atheists, monotheists, and duotheists. I'm more open about possibilities and godhood, therefore superior than all groups together.

Frankly I doubt it if you are honest you would actually make an argument that made sense.

I wait in earnest for one, not an exercise in you stroking your ego because you are open minded. Shit I am open minded, you think having a free opinion means you actually have a decent one. God help you.

[Moreno]

Such as?

Well, generally some form of scientific empiricism is the only sound route to knowledge. I do agree, one can be an atheist and have no specific philosophical beliefs in common with other atheists. On the other hand there are some huge tendencies, especially for any atheists who engage in debates on the subject. There is a very high % that the atheists who are active around the issue, so generally anyone who participates in such discussions on philosophy forums or joins atheist or skeptics organizations, etc., are going to have certain core beliefs in common. Beliefs do tend to come in sets, especially beliefs that are usually part of a larger worldview and pretty much necessarily so. This family of beliefs generally come out of the specific epistemology.

[Chester]

The whole "evolve" thing is a red herring . The most logical reason for the fact that atoms have formed life, that life can think about stuff like God, is that they were "programmed" to do so.The laws of nature are a program is the simplest, most reasonable ,explanation of their existence (though not necessarily the correct one).

The evidence for a conscious cause of the Universe is all around us...will is an integral part of the existence of complex balanced systems (like the laws of nature).

Man you're annoying me now, you just don't listen to reason. I'm not sure I can explain the thing any way that you will understand any more. Your bias is clouding your judgement, there's no point talking to someone who is well let's face it fanatical about chance, which no atheist or scientist really believes in, evolution which is no mans (or woman's) God or anything that you seem to think is an absolute. Religion is the only thing that wields absolutes like a sword, ok they are really bad swordsmen and they tend to have butter fingers but hey!

We don't need to fully understand an explanation if key parts of the explanation are useful to our understanding.God supplies the will necessary for this world, I don't need to explain what colour eyes He has.

We do, we need to know why God is necessary, you still haven't explained it given the counter arguments I have raised.

It is true that eternity/infinity doesn't necessitate the existence of God, but it certainly raises the possibilities.

Of course it does, what it doesn't raise is the possibility of only God as a solution! Have faith my friend, and depend on it, religion is a comfort, follow it, love it, and whatever. But don't expect it to provide any answers any more than anything does.

I'm a step ahead of you mate, that's all. You're saying that chance does not cause the universe,that everything we witness happens because it has to given the situation. The situation is the laws that govern things.I'm saying that it is reasonable (from experience) to see these laws as a kind of program, you believe these laws arise from the things themselves, that things cause their own laws... there is no evidence for this.Your premise is that chance does not exits in the construction of reality, that it must happen because the things cause themselves to behave just so, but from experience only conscious things , or things programmed by conscious beings can do such a thing.So , basically, it is necessary for you to believe that the laws arise from reality by chance...eg, it just so happens that hydrogen atoms behave as they do.

God is necessary because , from experience, will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex balanced systems.

[Calrid]

The whole "evolve" thing is a red herring . The most logical reason for the fact that atoms have formed life, that life can think about stuff like God, is that they were "programmed" to do so.The laws of nature are a program is the simplest, most reasonable ,explanation of their existence (though not necessarily the correct one).

The evidence for a conscious cause of the Universe is all around us...will is an integral part of the existence of complex balanced systems (like the laws of nature).

Man you're annoying me now, you just don't listen to reason. I'm not sure I can explain the thing any way that you will understand any more. Your bias is clouding your judgement, there's no point talking to someone who is well let's face it fanatical about chance, which no atheist or scientist really believes in, evolution which is no mans (or woman's) God or anything that you seem to think is an absolute. Religion is the only thing that wields absolutes like a sword, ok they are really bad swordsmen and they tend to have butter fingers but hey!

We don't need to fully understand an explanation if key parts of the explanation are useful to our understanding.God supplies the will necessary for this world, I don't need to explain what colour eyes He has.

We do, we need to know why God is necessary, you still haven't explained it given the counter arguments I have raised.

It is true that eternity/infinity doesn't necessitate the existence of God, but it certainly raises the possibilities.

Of course it does, what it doesn't raise is the possibility of only God as a solution! Have faith my friend, and depend on it, religion is a comfort, follow it, love it, and whatever. But don't expect it to provide any answers any more than anything does.

I'm a step ahead of you mate, that's all. You're saying that chance does not cause the universe,that everything we witness happens because it has to given the situation. The situation is the laws that govern things.I'm saying that it is reasonable (from experience) to see these laws as a kind of program, you believe these laws arise from the things themselves, that things cause their own laws... there is no evidence for this.Your premise is that chance does not exits in the construction of reality, that it must happen because the things cause themselves to behave just so, but from experience only conscious things , or things programmed by conscious beings can do such a thing.So , basically, it is necessary for you to believe that the laws arise from reality by chance...eg, it just so happens that hydrogen atoms behave as they do.

God is necessary because , from experience, will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex balanced systems.

I know your argument I just think it is based on an assumption that cannot be verified.

There is no evidence the universe is eternal but it certainly does not need an agent if it is. I think you can't say in my experience because your experience is so minuscule and unimportant to everything. It is reasonable sure, but is it provable?

that things cause their own laws... there is no evidence for this

There is no evidence they don't so?

[felix dakat]

God is necessary because , from experience, will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex balanced systems.

Chester--

This is begging the question, a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form:   1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). 2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true. Your premise assumes that a will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex systems. Your conclusion is based on your assumption not on a fact. The solar system is a complex balanced system. There is no evidence that a will was necessary to form or maintain the solar system. The same can be said for the sun, earth's climate, quartz crystals, DNA, homeostasis, all natural complex systems, ad infinitum.

[Calrid]

God is necessary because , from experience, will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex balanced systems.

Chester--

This is Begging the Question, a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.   1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). 2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true. Your premise assumes that a will is required for the formation and maintenance of complex systems. Your conclusion confirms your assumption not a fact. The solar system is a complex relatively stable system. There is no evidence that a will was necessary to form or maintain the solar system. The same can be said for the sun, the climate, quartz crystals, DNA, etc, all natural complex systems ad infinitum.

I wish I'd said that. I'd considered going the fallacy route, but I'd of done it badly so I didn't.