religion

ConversesAtheism and humanism

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

religion

Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.

1s.abolfazl
abr. 9, 2014, 5:54pm

What meaning religion? Is it a belief? In Arabic language religion is the same path (path is a way especially designed for a particular use) religion aim is idealization of human and god is crater this path and prophet is leader in this path, all 124,000 prophets include Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them) and latest prophet is Muhammad (peace be upon him) are leaders in them time’s but today after Muhammad his book; Quran and imam (leader not prophet and without book) are leader.

2amysisson
abr. 9, 2014, 5:55pm

Please do not keep posting the same thing in multiple threads.

3JGL53
abr. 11, 2014, 11:41pm

Maybe he is lonely.

4s.abolfazl
abr. 12, 2014, 8:08am

Peradventure your justification is right but I think move and anticipate better than of stay and despair, is it right?

5JGL53
abr. 12, 2014, 3:53pm

> 4

Yes. That and a six-pack will get you through today. At least.

6Amtep
abr. 12, 2014, 10:03pm

There were actually 124,001 prophets. There was a short one behind the third in the back that was missed in the count.

7s.abolfazl
Editat: abr. 13, 2014, 7:39am

>6 Amtep:
apparently, prophet is the same message conveyer

8s.abolfazl
Editat: abr. 13, 2014, 7:39am

>5 JGL53:
actually?

9JGL53
Editat: abr. 14, 2014, 5:20pm

> 8

Yes. Or engage in your favorite sex perversion. Anything to get your mind off of things you really should not be cogitating about, since no good can ever come from that - obviously.

10s.abolfazl
abr. 14, 2014, 3:46am

>9 JGL53:
if you trip to e.g london, how do you do? you need buy a Airplane ticket and whatnot. perhaps you say Airplane have hijackers or you say your's airplane crash land. not problem you can trip other ways. in your indivisual live you can cogitate about anything and trip anywhere. something journay in religion and other not. I don't think very difficult!
can I question of you? you can don't answer.
How do you think about life and about death and about life after the death?

11JGL53
abr. 14, 2014, 5:21pm

> 10

"...How do you think about life and about death and about life after the death?"

- In English.

12ThrillerFan
Editat: abr. 14, 2014, 5:32pm

Atheism is proven wrong!

Argument from Contingency disproves atheism. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether Jesus Christ or Allah or what any other Religion-Specific belief says is right or not.

Jesus may be God. Allah may be God. A Graham Cracker may be God. Someone's genitals may be God. There may be 500 Gods. Nobody knows, and anybody that says that the Bible or Koran or one of many other fairy tale novels is 100% proven fact is absolutely full of themselves. It's 100% belief, 0% proven fact. All that's proven is that a God of some form exists!

All it proves is that Atheism is false! So one eliminated, about a kazillion others to decipher as to which is correct, and I highly doubt that any of them are 100% correct!

13JGL53
Editat: abr. 14, 2014, 5:52pm

> 12

Assuming your post is not some weak attempt at humor, i.e., assuming you are trying to make a serious point, then what do you mean by "the argument from contingency disproves atheism"?

Does "disprove atheism" equate to "prove theism"? If so then why use the double negative?

So, are you arguing that deism is ipso facto true, i.e., asserting that the first cause argument is logically sound?

If not, then what?

So: Q - K7, check.

Your move.

14southernbooklady
abr. 14, 2014, 6:37pm

>13 JGL53: what do you mean by "the argument from contingency disproves atheism"?

I have a theory that there is an inverse correlation between the quantity of exclamation points in a post and the amount of empirical evidence that supports it. (!!!!!!!!!! :-) )

15s.abolfazl
abr. 14, 2014, 11:53pm

>11 JGL53:
seem you are attractive and for me you have wondrous viewpoint. don't important you are atheism or theism but certainly your perspective different with my perspective. I myself don't fear of death because death not equal end. death is one of the causes difference between atheism and theism, in particular between atheism and muslim.

16JGL53
abr. 15, 2014, 4:22pm

> 15

I couldn't have said it better myself.

17Amtep
abr. 16, 2014, 1:28pm

>15 s.abolfazl:

What I want to know first is why God has made me an unbeliever, and why he would want to punish me for that. (2:6-7)

18s.abolfazl
Editat: abr. 17, 2014, 12:39am

>17 Amtep:
Do you have confidence born unbeliever? if you want question of me I have been say it isn't true.
okay, forget this topic
this message wrote for you, do you believe this message don't has writer? no anywise, even you say writer is a computer hereon exist person that program this computer , willy nilly exist a writer! do you see me? no anywise in result you can't say don't exist writer! we can't see god but I can believe his and you can't believe his.
you can see god but not by eyes you can see god by your heart's. you can hear god's voice but not by ears you can hear god's voice by your heart's. you can confabulate with god but not by language just suffice believe allah
now come around your question; if my parents were unbeliever peradventure at present I was a unbeliever but I think all
childs born believer and afterwards lose this belief, Do you have confidence god punish you perhaps punish me because I can't justification my friends!
Assume that you are god and I am a unbeliever you send very pulse for me you tell me not only 20 minutes not 20 hours
you tell me more than 20 years and I don't hear your voice because my heart is black and impure. nevertheless Do you punish me?
alway take care my friend Richard

19ThrillerFan
maig 9, 2014, 9:20am

> 13

You are correct that it was a serious point and not some weak attempt at humor.

What I mean by "The argument from contingency disproves atheism" is that the argument from contigency proves that there is a god of some sort. It says nothing about it being a specific god (like Jesus or Allah, as indicated in post 12), and nothing about quantity of gods (Greeks years ago believed there were many). Only that some form of god (or "high being" if you want to use a different term) must exist.

So in math terms, let X represent the number of Gods that exist.

Atheism, by definition, says that X = 0, no questions asked.

The Contingency Argument proves that X >= 1 (>= is "Greater Than or Equal To").

0 is not in the subset of "All Numbers Greater Than or Equal to One", therefore 0 can't be the number of Gods, and since Atheism is specifically defined as X = 0, Atheism must be false!

So: QxQ, Your Move

20jjwilson61
maig 9, 2014, 10:12am

If you define God as "something we don't understand" then I suppose you're right.

21JGL53
Editat: maig 9, 2014, 3:57pm

> 19

"...the argument from contingency proves that there is a god of some sort...." - and etc.

As indicated in post #20 if you define "god" as just some non-defined first cause, with no other attributes required, then you are basically making no argument - except for radical agnosticism, perhaps.

If I define the universe, i.e., ALL that is or ever was, as being "god" then I suppose that I and all other atheists all accept the existence of god, i.e., god so defined. (Put another way, if you define god sans supernatural concepts, then there is nothing for us to disbelieve.

So are we just playing word games here? It seems that that IS what you are doing, and nothing more.

Are you interested in going further than that? Then give a minimum definition of "god" which includes something, anything, other than just first cause or the source of all - because, to repeat, that is saying nothing an atheist can disagree with.

If you have nothing to say on the subject of "god" that an atheist can disagree with, then you are saying nothing - of any interest, ontologically-speaking.

RXQ, check.

(BTW, you seem to be playing Chinese checkers here instead of chess. lol.)

22ThrillerFan
maig 9, 2014, 4:59pm

JGL,

I define "God" as specifically an unknown figure that is specifically a higher being than human form. What form that "higher being" comes in nobody knows, and anybody that claims they know are basically full of s***.

That "higher being" has control over what is below. That higher being can make whatever he wants to happen, happen, and he can also, by his own choice, grant "free will" to whatever is below him.

So it doesn't say "nothing" outside of it being an "unknown". It says that there is some higher power that must have created what is here today. Whether that higher power is Jesus Christ, Allah, or a Paper Towel tube that we think is not alive but really is, no human being knows, and that's where "belief" comes into factor.

As far as anybody knows, it may be a cockroach that is controlling your life and he decides what he controls, and what areas he gives you free will.

23southernbooklady
maig 9, 2014, 5:32pm

Somehow, the idea of god as the guy that shoved the first rock to get the universe rolling seems like it would be pretty unsatisfying to the faithful.

24jjwilson61
maig 9, 2014, 6:01pm

Your idea that there is a first cause (and that is even suspect) says nothing about whether this entity has any effect or relevance on the current universe. Since that isn't the theism that the 'a' in atheism is about you've demonstrated nothing.

25JGL53
Editat: maig 9, 2014, 6:41pm

> 22

I agree with post 24 above.

I will just add that you, ThrillerFan, are not making sense.

E.g., I know of no paper towel tube that is a sentient being. IOW, I know of no paper towel tube that acts with intention or makes decisions or consciously acts in any way because paper towel tubes are not conscious in any way, shape or form, they are not alive, they are not animate.

If you do not agree with the above then I will not make any assessment of your mentality on this thread since in doing so I would have to violate the TOS.

If you understand that paper towel tubes are not sentient beings or even conscious to any degree then your "argument" becomes merely a word game that has no meaning whatsoever - (well, maybe to you, but certainly not to any of the other 7 billion plus people on earth).

My position is clear:

The universe has always existed, all changes are just natural occurrences, and no one is in charge overall or has created anything "out of nothing", much less the entire universe. The universe had no beginning and it has no end - that is the default position. Do you have a logically sound argument to refute that, to show necessity for something beyond that? So far you have not.

Fine. The word "god" can be shorthand for "the universe". Or it can be shorthand for agnosticism, i.e., "god" = we know not what, but not necessarily anything with sentience.

Your "math" in post #19 is flawed. You have proved nothing. Your posts so far have been a big waste of time as far as I can see. Unless and until you can come up with something new please lay off.

Thank you and have a nice day.

26ThrillerFan
maig 9, 2014, 9:13pm

> 25

First off, the use of "Paper Towel Tube" was merely to make a point that God could be anything. Obviously not "literally" a paper towel tube, but could easily be something other than the commonly known religious gods, like Jesus or Allah.

Secondly, the Universe must have had a beginning. For anything that has "time" as a dimension to exist (meaning things like "lines" on 2D graphs as opposed to Vectors or Segments don't apply), it must have started somewhere. It may never end, but it had to have a beginning to exist, and since like you said, something can not come from nothing, it must have done one of two things. Be created, or evolved. Well, while some will argue that humans evolved from apes, where did the ape come from? If the ape evolved from say, a dinosaur breed (just hypothesizing here), then where did the dinosaur breed come from? Point is, something must have been "created", whatever that first item was that may have evolved into other things, and who knows, maybe that was a paper towel tube that was created, and it evolved into one thing, that evolved into something else, and eventually into something living. Nobody knows. However, a minimum of one item must have been "created". The human cannot "create" something from nothing, and so therefore, a higher being, or a "God", must have created the first object. Again, nothing says that's Jesus or Allah. It could be "Bob" for all we know.

All of that said ...

There's one other thing you are missing about your paper towel tube argument. You "perceive" the paper towel tube to:

A) Exist
B) Be inannimate

Whether it really is a paper towel tube, or whether it exists at all, is still in question.

Some will argue that it does exist, and you are able to consciously think about the fact that it's there. That's known as Dualism

Some will argue that it does exist, and that all matter exists, but mind is non-existent. That's known as Materialism

Some will argue that everything is all in the mind, and that matter doesn't exist. The table you see and feel isn't there, you just perceive it to be there. What a table is is another whole story. This concept of all mind and no matter is called Idealism.

So while the "average Joe" sees a paper towel tube as a non-living object of matter, that assessment may very well be inaccurate as well.

27JGL53
Editat: maig 10, 2014, 4:27pm

> 26

“… to make a point that God could be anything…”

Uh, my point exactly - that you are not saying anything. Your ramblings about this subject are a null set.

“..Secondly, the Universe must have had a beginning…it must have started somewhere…it had to have a beginning to exist… a minimum of one item must have been ‘created'….a minimum of one item must have been ‘created'….therefore, a higher being, or a 'God', must have created the first object…”

NO - none of that is necessarily true. The observable universe could have always have been. Where does a sound argument exist that it could not? Based on what?

“There's one other thing you are missing about your paper towel tube argument. You "perceive" the paper towel tube to, blah, blah, blah….”

But the paper towel tube is not my argument, it is yours. Don’t try to put it off on me - it is your proud “creation”. lol.

Yes, there is the apparent and there is the real. There is the timeless monistic reality and there is it’s dualistic or multiple-istic manifestation.

Perhaps you should read some Alan Watts. He was very good at pointing out the default position that all is one.

Monism is the default position. But there is no reason to believe it is necessarily a pantheistic idealism. That ideal violates Occam’s Razor up to and until you can demonstrate such is necessary being.

You are just trying to pass off new versions of argument from first cause, and argument from design, both mixed with some sort of argument from personal incredulity. It all amounts to a big fat nothing. It seems to me you have gotten your “reasoned” arguments from reading fundy creationist texts. That is not good.

The universe MUST be nothing that you say it MUST. The universe MIGHT be the result of the actions of some super-sentience - a so-called god - but there is no necessity for such. Your burden would be to demonstrate such a thing is necessity, not insist that it MUST be - just because you say so.

The best you can do is make a case for agnosticism - which I see as a categorical mistake because OF COURSE we can know nothing about meaningless non-falsifiable claims.

28jjwilson61
maig 9, 2014, 9:56pm

If something cant come from nothing then where did this god come from. Are there an infinite number of meta gods?

29JGL53
Editat: maig 9, 2014, 10:01pm

> 28 LOL. - of course, that is the argument from infinite regression that KILLS the first cause argument.

Good luck, amigo, with explaining that one to ThrillerFan.

30Amtep
maig 10, 2014, 8:23am

The argument from First Cause in a nutshell:

1. Everything must have a cause
2. Therefore, there must be something that does not have a cause

31JGL53
maig 10, 2014, 4:20pm

> 30

LOL.

The design argument in a nutshell:

1. The universe shows extreme complexity.
2. Anything with extreme complexity must have had a designer of an even higher complexity.
3. See argument from infinite regression.

32AsYouKnow_Bob
Editat: maig 10, 2014, 6:51pm

>26 ThrillerFan: Secondly, the Universe must have had a beginning.

Why?
This axiom is utterly and completely unsubstantiated.

IF you ASSUME this to be the case, yes, you can proceed with this line of reasoning.

But don't fool yourself that it's a true statement simply because you find it satisfying to think that it's a true statement.

And as has been pointed out above: even postulating a Prime Mover doesn't bring you any closer to proving the existence of a god; let alone a god that cares about humans, let alone a god that requires worship, let alone a god that worries about what you eat, etc.

Even IF it were true, "The universe was set in motion by forces we do not / can not understand" is a pretty weak foundation to build a religion upon.

33ThrillerFan
maig 10, 2014, 7:22pm

32

Everything must have a beginning. Matter can not haveexisted indefinitely. The earth is matter. Mars is matter. All humans have a moment of birth. All objectshad a day of "birth". Your house was built in a certain year and did not exist indefinitely, whether it was built in 2006, 1973, or is a historic house built in 1895, ithad a start date. Well, Earth had a start date. Most believe that was 4.5 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't exist indefinitely. The same can be said for the rest of the universe. Mars had a start date, so did Neptune. They may not have started as the same form as today. Earth was a fireball at dirst. So again, unless you think matter doesn't exist, and are an idealist, creation must have occurred. So which is it? Idealism, creation, or both. "Neither" is impossible.

34AsYouKnow_Bob
Editat: maig 10, 2014, 7:28pm

>33 ThrillerFan: "Everything - INCLUDING MY PRIME MOVER - must have a beginning."

Fixed that for you.

You either mean "Almost everything must have a beginning" or "Everything except my hypothetical prime mover must have a beginning."

Come back when you've figured out which it is.

35JGL53
Editat: maig 10, 2014, 11:58pm

> 33, 34

TF does not understand because in his world this god thing gets a pass from the "everything had a beginning" rule. This is because god is special. Special in a way that only TF knows about. And the rest of us will never understand like TF understands because apparently it will be impossible for TF to draw us into his world where god gets the free pass - regarding a rule that does not exist in the real world, only in TF's world.

One last time, and I swear to Allah this is it:

Infinite regress, TF, infinite regress.

Look it up, TF. Study it. Learn it. Become one with it. Then come back and apologize for wasting everyone's time here.

Or not. I've almost lost the will to live at this point.

36s.abolfazl
maig 11, 2014, 7:46am

universe and all things created in the 6 steps but human don't created, in other word human not complete these steps, at present humans locate in forth step and two other step are life + death. god(Allah) and religion(Islam) help humans to crate real humans and after complete these 6 steps them life immortal.

37southernbooklady
maig 11, 2014, 8:19am

>36 s.abolfazl: universe and all things created in the 6 steps

This is a statement of faith, but not a statement of proof. ThrillerFan is being challenged because he(she?) claimed to have proof of a Creator. JGL53 and AsYouKnow_Bob have simply pointed out that the offered "proof" is not, in fact, proof of anything. Merely a starting supposition. Or, if you like, a statement of faith.