Is science against the Revealed Religion?

[paarsurrey]

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. People have killed and torchered many people in the name of the men you mentioned explicitly. Anti-theists/Atheists don't very often kill or torcher explicitly in the name of science. If anyone thinks differently, they are going off mere speculation. There is a big difference when people explicitly assign their actions to a religion or religious figure. It is something that should be acknowledged.

I don't agree with you. They all were peaceful persons.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But God, a deist God, is a 50-50 possibility against no God. Reasonable atheists, like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have been forced to admit that a deistic, laissez faire God is a possibility.

Reason alone can go only to 50-50 possibility, the rest is based on experience and experiments.
Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But God, a deist God, is a 50-50 possibility against no God.

Either unicorns rule Russia via Ants from Atlantis, or they don't. Dual mutually exclusive possibilities do not a 50/50 probability make.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Reason alone can go only to 50-50 possibility, the rest is based on experience and experiments.
Regards

There's the conundrum of the existence of the universe, with all it's logical natural law; yet there's not the first bit of evidence of how it came to be. We can neither assume that the cause was natural, or supernatural; spontaneous, or the result of a conscious will. Confusing that with the plethora of revealed gods, the gods most atheists have rejected and argue against, is what causes honest atheists like Dawkins and Krauss to admit that God can't be ruled out as the cause for the universe.

Either unicorns rule Russia via Ants from Atlantis, or they don't. Dual mutually exclusive possibilities do not a 50/50 probability make.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."--In this case attempting to refute a deist God by arguing against revealed gods. It's become so ubiquitous among less discriminating atheists, that I think we can now safely refer to this particular example as the straw unicorn fallacy. (RE: Dawkins and Krauss above)

I imagine there's an infinite number of forms such a creator God could take if It wanted to, but there's only one reason that a God, whatever It's form, would remain unrevealed within It's own creation--free will, the only reasonable purpose for the universe, if there is one at all. You continue to argue against the "revealed" gods. Well done. You've made your point with ease.

 

[paarsurrey]

post #104 above
"with all it's logical natural law"​

Why should all the natural laws be always logical? Is it a requirement of science?
It is the verses of the Word Revealed from the All-Wise that its verses should be reasonable and rational.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

You're coming at me with your preconceived ideas. I didn't start with hope and then find a place to back it in; reason reduced the possibilities to deism and atheism--that but for hope, are the same from our perspective. How is it childish to choose hope? To me, many atheists believe as they do as a form of rebellion for it's own sake, while they all try to rationalize the pointlessness of our threescore-ten and out. Even if you saved the world, it would be a meaningless gesture.

Telling me to keep my hope to myself is defensive in the extreme. Comparing Santa with God is ridiculous. Santa Clause, like all the revealed gods, is a lie. But God, a deist God, is a 50-50 possibility against no God. Reasonable atheists, like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have been forced to admit that a deistic, laissez faire God is a possibility. You have no evidence either way because there is none--but the universe remains, demanding an explanation.

1. Your assumption about knowing the intentions of atheists is speculative at best. I would say that my experience has been the opposite, and my experiences are just as valid as yours. Atheists cannot be lumped together in such ways legitimately. You are describing a mere stereotype.

2. We do not have to provide an explanation now. Our understanding of the cosmos is so utterly limited that accepting an explanation now is foolish. We must always keep our minds open to possibilities, as if we don't we might stop searching.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

post #104 above
"with all it's logical natural law"​

Why should all the natural laws be always logical?
Regards

Well, if there is no God, there would be no reason, no "why", they just are.

And if there is, I can only speculate further on my speculation that God, if It exists, created the universe as a stage on which to exercise our free will. Then, an irrational (not always logical) universe would make our decisions, including especially our moral decisions, impossible, in such chaotic, illogical surroundings.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

1. Your assumption about knowing the intentions of atheists is speculative at best. I would say that my experience has been the opposite, and my experiences are just as valid as yours. Atheists cannot be lumped together in such ways legitimately. You are describing a mere stereotype.

Yes, but since there are no studies about it that I know of, I necessarily fall back on my wide ranging anecdotal experiences--which is validated to a significant degree by the ever present wide use of the straw unicorn fallacy. But I'm also the first to admit that there are a goodly number of reasoned atheists, whose outlook I equate, reasonably, with deism. I won't argue with you about which is the larger contingent, but like political liberals, they are the more vociferous. And need I point out that stereotypes typically have a foundation in facts.

2. We do not have to provide an explanation now. Our understanding of the cosmos is so utterly limited that accepting an explanation now is foolish. We must always keep our minds open to possibilities, as if we don't we might stop searching.

But my speculation follows logically from the one "If" proposition-- if God exists. If God exists and created the universe, it would have to be a stage on which sentient creatures could exercise our free will without the influential knowledge of It's existence. Walking away from such a billions of years in the making creation would make no sense. And anyway, a God powerful enough to create the universe, could have done anything else instantly. A supernatural God creating creatures with unfettered moral free will is one helluva trick. The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists, the experiment, the test, is spoiled.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but since there are no studies about it that I know of, I necessarily fall back on my wide ranging anecdotal experiences--which is validated to a significant degree by the ever present wide use of the straw unicorn fallacy. But I'm also the first to admit that there are a goodly number of reasoned atheists, whose outlook I equate, reasonably, with deism. I won't argue with you about which is the larger contingent, but like political liberals, they are the more vociferous. And need I point out that stereotypes typically have a foundation in facts.



But my speculation follows logically from the one "If" proposition-- if God exists. If God exists and created the universe, it would have to be a stage on which sentient creatures could exercise our free will without the influential knowledge of It's existence. Walking away from such a billions of years in the making creation would make no sense. And anyway, a God powerful enough to create the universe, could have done anything else instantly. A supernatural God creating creatures with unfettered moral free will is one helluva trick. The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists, the experiment, the test, is spoiled.

Why do you have to submit to generalizations in the first place. "Atheism" like "theism" is an extremely general term. Why do you feel the need to make assumptions about them as a group?

 

[paarsurrey]

Anybody could respond.

Post #108 above
"The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists"​

Who will decide such delicate % of 51? Please
Regards

 

[McBell]

Why do you have to submit to generalizations in the first place. "Atheism" like "theism" is an extremely general term. Why do you feel the need to make assumptions about them as a group?

That is his straw unicorn to attack.

 

[gnostic]

But my speculation follows logically from the one "If" proposition-- if God exists. If God exists and created the universe, it would have to be a stage on which sentient creatures could exercise our free will without the influential knowledge of It's existence. Walking away from such a billions of years in the making creation would make no sense. And anyway, a God powerful enough to create the universe, could have done anything else instantly. A supernatural God creating creatures with unfettered moral free will is one helluva trick. The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists, the experiment, the test, is spoiled.

That's just based on your personal opinion or belief, if such a god exists in the first place, be that abrahamic deity, a pantheon of deities or a deistic deity.

I just think that it is silly to think that the universe require a god for the universe's creation, when this God is based on nothing more than wishful thinking or misplaced belief (meaning superstition).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why do you have to submit to generalizations in the first place. "Atheism" like "theism" is an extremely general term. Why do you feel the need to make assumptions about them as a group?

Which generalizations, that some atheists are as reasonable as deists while others are very unreasonable; or why some claim (irrational) certainty that God doesn't exist, while others take a rational agnostic approach. Those generalizations? I've promoted those understandings as long as I've been doing this, but I don't always put those disclaimers in every post I make in response to the mega-vociferous, who are that way in order to compensate for their (fill in the blank). And that isn't a generalization, it's a fact to which they tie themselves with a rope around their necks. They're scared to death of the water and the depth of thought it requires.

Marcion was an early rejector of the OT. He saw the OT God as incompatable with the God that Jesus described. I see his point.

Yet Jesus worshiped the God of the O/T, telling his followers to prepare for the Kingdom of God (the God of the O/T). He also referenced the O/T regularly, including on the cross where he asked God why he was betrayed.. Just more examples of Biblical contradictions.

Anybody could respond.

Post #108 above
"The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists"​

Who will decide such delicate % of 51? Please
Regards

The Truth, when the first piece of evidence surfaces against God--which would make it instantly 100% because it would mean that God had failed in his scheme remain anonymous. And if there was a piece of evidence for God, that would mean that God made a mistake allowing it through, therefore not being perfect, his divinity was discounted and God couldn't exist. You're asking the wrong questions: What is moral free will and why would it be so important to an omnipotent God?

That is his straw unicorn to attack.

Ohhhhhh Please Massah, don't throw me in front of that straw unicorn PLEEEEEEZ!

 

[McBell]

If God exists and created the universe, it would have to be a stage on which sentient creatures could exercise our free will without the influential knowledge of It's existence.

says who?

Walking away from such a billions of years in the making creation would make no sense.

What do you know of what does and does not make sense to god?

And anyway, a God powerful enough to create the universe, could have done anything else instantly. A supernatural God creating creatures with unfettered moral free will is one helluva trick. The minute we have a 51% certainty that It exists, the experiment, the test, is spoiled.

Argument from incredulity is not an argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Which generalizations, that some atheists are as reasonable as deists while others are very unreasonable; or why some claim (irrational) certainty that God doesn't exist, while others take a rational agnostic approach. Those generalizations? I've promoted those understandings as long as I've been doing this, but I don't always put those disclaimers in every post I make in response to the mega-vociferous, who are that way in order to compensate for their (fill in the blank). And that isn't a generalization, it's a fact to which they tie themselves with a rope around their necks. They're scared to death of the water and the depth of thought it requires.



Yet Jesus worshiped the God of the O/T, telling his followers to prepare for the Kingdom of God (the God of the O/T). He also referenced the O/T regularly, including on the cross where he asked God why he was betrayed.. Just more examples of Biblical contradictions.



The Truth, when the first piece of evidence surfaces against God--which would make it instantly 100% because it would mean that God had failed in his scheme remain anonymous. And if there was a piece of evidence for God, that would mean that God made a mistake allowing it through, therefore not being perfect, his divinity was discounted and God couldn't exist. You're asking the wrong questions: What is moral free will and why would it be so important to an omnipotent God?



Ohhhhhh Please Massah, don't throw me in front of that straw unicorn PLEEEEEEZ!

There are subcategories of atheism, just like theism. You should use them and that fixes evetythimg. Do people lump Muslims with Christians or Jewish people? And they are all Abrahamic. Atheism is a very general term, so, imho, any generalization is unwarranted.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

says who?

What do you know of what does and does not make sense to god?

Argument from incredulity is not an argument.

All I know is using reason to make sense. So you say if something doesn't make sense, it isn't an argument. Why don't you convince yourself before you try to convince someone else.

There are subcategories of atheism, just like theism.

Make up your mind, are you accusing me of generalizing or not?

You should use them and that fixes everything. Do people lump Muslims with Christians or Jewish people? And they are all Abrahamic. Atheism is a very general term, so, imho, any generalization is unwarranted.

I use a much broader term that fits all of them and just about all the rest, revealed religions. Generalizing there works to a T, it's just that simple. Don't you feel just a little bit guilty about accusing me of generalizing one minute, and not the next, back and forth, back and forth--never seeming to realize that sometimes that's what's called for? For instance, I pretty much cagegorize all NAZIs as stereotypical effluent bound for a subterranean septic tank. People who stick to "their side" at the cost of all reason while building a self-serving facade of subjective morality are all but indistinguishable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."--In this case attempting to refute a deist God by arguing against revealed gods. It's become so ubiquitous among less discriminating atheists, that I think we can now safely refer to this particular example as the straw unicorn fallacy. (RE: Dawkins and Krauss above)

I'm not an atheist.

You continue to argue against the "revealed" gods.

I've never made such an argument.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not an atheist.

You don't say what you are or take a position for something, you just join other atheists in the straw unicorn fallacy. What d'you expect?

I've never made such an argument.

The straw unicorn is an argument against revealed gods. Do I need to post the definition of straw man again? I'm arguing for the equal likelihood of atheism and deism. And while we're at it, do you stand for anything or do you just like to take cheap shots from the sidelines?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't say what you are or take a position for something, you just join other atheists in the straw unicorn fallacy. What d'you expect?

That the many times I've identified myself as agnostic and fought against the definition of agnosticism as a form of atheism might, just maybe, be read before others attribute to me positions I don't hold.

The straw unicorn is an argument against revealed gods.

Ok, fine. What argument have I ever made against revealed gods or any other?

And while we're at it, do you stand for anything or do you just like to take cheap shots from the sidelines?

I stand for the position that one can not know and neither be atheist nor theist nor deist nor...well, anything other than agnostic.

 

[McBell]

All I know is using reason to make sense.

So when are you going to start?
Using reason that is.
Are you confusing reason with ratification?

So you say if something doesn't make sense, it isn't an argument. Why don't you convince yourself before you try to convince someone else.

I am not the one trying to convince others.
That would be you.

Your "argument" is basically nothing more than "it does not make sense to me therefore it is wrong".