671 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

I'm agnostic, but if there is a god, it definitely isn't the "personal" God of the Bible.

[DJS]

Wiki - Agnostic Atheism

[zoolander]

Alright so someone asks me if I believe in God and I say no. Then they ask me what I am and I say I don't know. Then I go away and start to look for a definition of what I am. I see find the term "Agnostic' that outlines what I might be so I take on the term or should I say, label myself.

This approach is bullshit IMO. I don't believe in GOD and don't think I need to search for a definition that describes what I am so that the person/people asking questions can pigeon hole me. Importantly though I don't see any reason to pigeon hole myself.

I usually tell them I am nothing and everything at the same time. That really pisses them off because they can't find a nice comfortable slot to put me in.

[Live Forever]

Alright so someone asks me if I believe in God and I say no. Then they ask me what I am and I say I don't know. Then I go away and start to look for a definition of what I am. I see find the term "Agnostic' that outlines what I might be so I take on the term or should I say, label myself.

This approach is bullshit IMO. I don't believe in GOD and don't think I need to search for a definition that describes what I am so that the person/people asking questions can pigeon hole me. Importantly though I don't see any reason to pigeon hole myself.

I usually tell them I am nothing and everything at the same time. That really pisses them off because they can't find a nice comfortable slot to put me in.

People do like to label other people. If you don't fit in a nice little box for them, it irritates them.

[DJS]

Well Zoo, it seems that some degree of pigeon holing, or presupposition is necessary if one hopes to engage in inter-subjective communications.

If you're having a conversation, and you want the person you are conversing with to have a practical starting point, then you best come up with some satisfactorily adequate way of defining yourself. Otherwise, just spare yourself the trouble and avoid intellectual discussions entirely. The latter option isn't as dreadful as it might at first sound, at least from the perspective of rational egoism.

[DJS]

This would be a fun way to start off a conversation with someone:

So are you an atheist?

Well, for starters, I am a compatibilist, naturalist, consequentialist, existentialist, pragmatic, functionalist, cybernetician who likes to dabble in futurist speculations. Oh yes, and I have no belief in any God or Gods. Does that answer your question?

[Athanasios]

This approach is bullshit IMO. I don't believe in GOD and don't think I need to search for a definition that describes what I am so that the person/people asking questions can pigeon hole me. Importantly though I don't see any reason to pigeon hole myself.

Tell them what you reject then, not what you believe. At least that is what I do.

I sometimes tell people that I am not concerned if there is a god or not, but I am concerned with the responsibility I have for the outcomes of my actions. Any god that gets in the way of that responsibility, or in the way of responsible action itself, I actively reject.

[zoolander]

Tell them what you reject then, not what you believe. At least that is what I do.

I sometimes tell people that I am not concerned if there is a god or not, but I am concerned with the responsibility I have for the outcomes of my actions. Any god that gets in the way of that responsibility, or in the way of responsible action itself, I actively reject.

That is very well put Chris and pretty much how I feel. I live in the moment and hence reject label labels because they're not going to exist in the next moment when I'm a new person.

Don, if I have to put a name to it I would say that I am a situationalist. You're a philosophy man. Is that a known term?

[DJS]

Not that I am aware of...

Why not just say you are a Pragmatist? "Truth is what works".

[Pointdexter]

How about 'Rationalist'?

With the Rationalist mentality, the no-belief-in-God property is an inference.

With the atheist mentality, the no-belief-in-God property is a category.

[JohnDoe1234]

I sometimes tell people that I am not concerned if there is a god or not, but I am concerned with the responsibility I have for the outcomes of my actions. Any god that gets in the way of that responsibility, or in the way of responsible action itself, I actively reject.

Oooo... Clever...

[william7]

"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause."

What is the proof to say that cause was God....and what caused God? (and don't use the "He is outside of space and time" cop out; If everything deserves a cause, you have to answer it without resorting to magic, because I could resort to magic to disprove God if I were so inclined.) To say that everything needs a cause does not necessarily mean that cause was God. Anything that is more complex than the thing you are requiring to be caused by it necessarily requires a cause in and of itself. To say that the universe is eternal (always has been) is just the same (if not more sound scientifically) as saying that God is eternal, and just created a universe.

Why can't God exist outside of the ordinary laws of cause and effect and be the first cause of all things? Somewhere down the line there must be a first cause we're not able to fully comprehend. Wouldn't you agree? Why can't the Bible be true and the answer God?

[william7]

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

No, this only shows that God gave in to the children of Israel's craving for meat mentioned in Numbers 11:4; Deuteronomy 12:20, but with an eye towards limiting the meat to be eaten to the healthiest forms. God's heart was set on a vegan diet in the beginning, but was thwarted by Adam and Eve's sin. See Genesis 1:29-31. But God plans to bring the vegan diet - with fish eating - back in again during the Millennium when He sets things right. See Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25; Hosea 2:18 ("fish of the sea" not included in the covenant; cf Hosea 4:3).

[william7]

God has always been.  I don't believe everything in the universe is to be understand by man's mind.  This is all by design.  Some things just aren't to be known whether we like it or not. 

For instance...  What brought about subatomic particles into existance?  What makes up subatomic particles and what makes up that and so on and so on.  These are things that man will never know.  What is on the other side of the outer edge of space?  What is it made up of?

Excellent point!

[Aegist]

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

No, this only shows that God gave in to the children of Israel's craving for meat mentioned in Numbers 11:4; Deuteronomy 12:20, but with an eye towards limiting the meat to be eaten to the healthiest forms. God's heart was set on a vegan diet in the beginning, but was thwarted by Adam and Eve's sin. See Genesis 1:29-31. But God plans to bring the vegan diet - with fish eating - back in again during the Millennium when He sets things right. See Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25; Hosea 2:18 ("fish of the sea" not included in the covenant; cf Hosea 4:3).

GOD SAID RABBITS CHEW THE CUD. THEY DON'T.

GOD WAS WRONG.

What do you not understand about this?

[Aegist]

"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause."

What is the proof to say that cause was God....and what caused God? (and don't use the "He is outside of space and time" cop out; If everything deserves a cause, you have to answer it without resorting to magic, because I could resort to magic to disprove God if I were so inclined.) To say that everything needs a cause does not necessarily mean that cause was God. Anything that is more complex than the thing you are requiring to be caused by it necessarily requires a cause in and of itself. To say that the universe is eternal (always has been) is just the same (if not more sound scientifically) as saying that God is eternal, and just created a universe.

Why can't God exist outside of the ordinary laws of cause and effect and be the first cause of all things? Somewhere down the line there must be a first cause we're not able to fully comprehend. Wouldn't you agree? Why can't the Bible be true and the answer God?

The argument isn't that it can't be true, the argument is that there is ZERO reason to suppose that it is true.

However, I am now happy with my new reason for asserting that it isn't true: Rabbits and Hares do not chew the Cud. The bible says that God says that they do. The bible is wrong. End of story. Twist that fact however you want, maybe they interpreted it wrong (twice in a row), maybe the prophets misunderstood god...even if either of these were true, they still show the falability of the Bible.

You cannot trust what the bible says.

[eternaltraveler]

rabbits do eat their poo though.

[william7]

Genes replicate due to their chemical nature, which is no more startling than the fact that Oxygen and Carbon combine in a fire, that matter is attracted to matter by gravity, or that an object inmotion will remain in motion until acted upon by an external force.

DNA doesn't think, it just does what it does. And what it does is replicate itself. Pure, simple, easy. The result is startling, sure, but the method is so damn simple.

What caused or by what process did the DNA molecule come into existence? I read somewhere that certain molecular biologists have become believers in creation or intelligent design after being amazed at the intricacies and complexity of the DNA molecule. They realized that it just couldn't have developed or formed itself by a chance event.

[william7]

rabbits do eat their poo though.

And that's more than likely exactly what God meant by chewing the cud for the rabbit. The definition for chewing the cud we use today didn't come into effect until after God gave the law to Moses. So God was correct by His definition of chewing the cud. Thanks elrond!

[eternaltraveler]

rabbits do eat their poo though.

And that's more than likely exactly what God meant by chewing the cud for the rabbit. The definition for chewing the cud we use today didn't come into effect until after God gave the law to Moses. So God was correct by His definition of chewing the cud. Thanks elrond!

umm no.

The Hebrew word they use in the bible means "to regurgitate". An entirely different process from defecating. Rabbits just look like they chew cud because they chew for an obscenely long time.

Jeez, you can stretch your belief enough so that black=white if you have to.

There was no flood that killed all life on earth save two of everything a few thousand years ago. The earth is billions of years old.

There is really no point in this "debate" taking place. I've seen 5th grade debates with more logic.

Didn't you guys ever hear the saying, "don't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent"? [sfty]

[william7]

Biology was designed -- by the process of evolution.

But what caused or started the process going? What created or designed that first bit of life and caused it to reproduce itself? Did this come about by a chance event or was intended?

In regards to the apparent "fine tuning of our universe, please read this link (which I provided once earlier): Anthropic Principle.

I read the first section of this Wikipedia link. The last part of the first section says:

"The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have been criticized by some as being presently untestable, and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science."

I agree with this completely. The issue is controversial and debatable and science is currently unable to address or solve the matter.

[william7]

umm no.

The Hebrew word they use in the bible means "to regurgitate". An entirely different process from defecating. Rabbits just look like they chew cud because they chew for an obscenely long time.

Jeez, you can stretch your belief enough so that black=white if you have to.

You must understand that there's a difference between what God means by a word and what man means by a word. Again, God probably meant chew the cud to broadly include the rechewing of food already swallowed into the digestive system. Whether it was passed out the anus or returned directly from the stomach was all irrelevant to God.

God's intent in Leviticus 11 was only to indicate to the Israelites what was a healthier type of meat to be eaten and what was not. I would not throw out this law or anything God has said or done because of one supposedly faulty definition of little importance.

[eternaltraveler]

Elijah,

I have a yes/no question for you.

Was the earth flooded and two of each animal saved by Noah and his ark?

[braz]

Elrond, of course it is true, BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!

[Live Forever]

umm no.

The Hebrew word they use in the bible means "to regurgitate". An entirely different process from defecating. Rabbits just look like they chew cud because they chew for an obscenely long time.

Jeez, you can stretch your belief enough so that black=white if you have to.

You must understand that there's a difference between what God means by a word and what man means by a word. Again, God probably meant chew the cud to broadly include the rechewing of food already swallowed into the digestive system. Whether it was passed out the anus or returned directly from the stomach was all irrelevant to God.

God's intent in Leviticus 11 was only to indicate to the Israelites what was a healthier type of meat to be eaten and what was not. I would not throw out this law or anything God has said or done because of one supposedly faulty definition of little importance.

What about some of the places where the Bible says one thing, and in a different place says something completely different (contradicts itself). Like the 1st of the 3 examples I brought up:

Go for it.  I'm all ears.

Ok, just 3 for now (on Aegist's advice). I can provide tons more if needbe.

Was the potter’s field purchased by Judas before his death (Acts 1:15-19) or by the priests after his death (Matthew 27:3-10)?

According to Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus prophesied that some of the people listening to him would still be alive when he returned and God’s kingdom was ushered in: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Of course, it didn’t happen.

How many generations were there between the Babylonian captivity and Jesus? In Matthew 1, it says there were fourteen, but only thirteen are listed. (I love the math ones, because they are so hard to refute by saying that it is just due to "interpretation"; The math is wrong!, and not the only example of this)

Note: there are tons and tons of inconsistencies, where it says one thing in one place, and another in another place; Here is a fairly comprehensive list of a lot of them.

[william7]

Elijah,

I have a yes/no question for you.

Was the earth flooded and two of each animal saved by Noah and his ark?

Yea, I believe the flood occurred and Noah and the ark with all the animals in it survived it just as the Scriptures say. I realize there may be what appears to be contradictions or inconsistencies in the Scriptures to the nonbeliever. But, on closer examination, these Scriptures can be explained satisfactorily.

A good read for nonbelievers interested in learning more about the Bible is Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About The Christian Faith, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart. I highly recommend the book. The last part of the 6th chapter entitled "How can you believe a Bible that is full of contradictions?" says:

Certain passages at first glance appear to be contradictory, but further investigation will show that this is not the case.

...

While all Bible difficulties and discrepancies have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful being who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

It's just like science. Nobody has all the knowledge yet. As time goes on it will increase.

[eternaltraveler]

Yea, I believe the flood occurred and Noah and the ark with all the animals in it survived it just as the Scriptures say.

Thank you for clarifying that for me Elijah.

this, everyone, is why this debate is entirely pointless. There is no reasoning with anyone who believes this. So why bother.

There is no point in nitpicking things like whether or not rabbits eating their poo constituents chewing cud when the people you are debating actually believe something so ridiculous as the biblical flood.

[Lazarus Long]

(elijah)
Why can't God exist outside of the ordinary laws of cause and effect and be the first cause of all things?

First off this is logically contradictory. If god existed outside the laws of cause and effect then there is no causal relationship at all, hence god is not the *first cause*.

Second:

(elijah)
Somewhere down the line there must be a first cause we're not able to fully comprehend. Wouldn't you agree?

There is no need for a primal cause as there is no proof of a *beginning* in the sense you imply. Matter existed prior to the big bang, it is the temporal continuum as we perceive it that didn't. That began with the big bang.

So the answer to the second part is no.

(elijah)
Why can't the Bible be true and the answer God?

Because the bible simply contains some truth and a lot of falsity. It is just another document that is culturally significant and holds some allegoric and anecdotal significance. That is truth with a small *t*.

Anyway if god is the answer; what was the question?

[luv2increase]

There have been lots of supernatural things going on in the world in which scientists blatantly deny because it can't be explained by modern science.

People talk like science today explains everything. Well, there have been many advancements in science made within the last 100 years. At this rate, the science of today will be looked down upon and laughed at by the scientists 100 years into the future from today. We don't know the half of how the world works. We've only touched the tip of the iceberg. AND yet we trust this sub-par, inferior science with all we have. ??? It doesn't make sense that one would put all their faith within something so scattered and young in its development filled with theories upon theories with not half the facts as there are theories. These seems "illogical".

[william7]

First off this is logically contradictory. If god existed outside the laws of cause and effect then there is no causal relationship at all, hence god is not the *first cause*.

We're talking about a superior intelligence living under conditions that we're unable to adequately comprehend. I don't see the logical contradiction in this.

There is no need for a primal cause as there is no proof of a *beginning* in the sense you imply. Matter existed prior to the big bang, it is the temporal continuum as we perceive it that didn't. That began with the big bang.

I can't say with any certainty that matter existed prior to the big bang. I wasn't there and I believe it possible that God produced the first matter along with the big bang. God could have produced the matter, as we know it, out of something that we don't know about or understand. "Something out of nothing" I guess you could call it. You're trying to say matter as we know it has always existed. I can't say that with certainty.

Because the bible simply contains some truth and a lot of falsity. It is just another document that is culturally significant and holds some allegoric and anecdotal significance. That is truth with a small *t*.

From the perspective I've gained on it, the Bible's truth with a capital *T*.

Anyway if god is the answer; what was the question?

What is God's plan for mankind's future? What is the meaning and purpose of life? How should we live our lives? These are the really big questions.