Atheism destroyed.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Does our existence and intelligence require a creator?
How much more intelligent must the creators mind be?
So intelligent, it too requires an explanation for its existence?
If God doesn't require a creator to explain its existence, why do we?

A logical point.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

So God is an Atheist?.

I read through the closed thread and it seems the OP is under the impression that our, his, everyones existence needs to be justified.

That isn't the first time I have seen a theist make such a remark. I find that entire premise strange even a little obscene. Well the OP for some reason thinks reason and logic belong to christianity as well. I am used to seeing christians claim morality belongs to them but to claim reason and logic is a bit insane IMO. Usually reason and logic are mutually exclusive when speaking about sky fairies I am not saying there aren't exceptions to that rule but the OP in this instance isn't one of them.

I am having a hard time understanding the user lately these threads seem even more deluded than usual. Everytime I see a thread claiming things like this one I am reminded that

Hey its plausible.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Because, as it pertains to gravity, its always been what it is. It's never changed. So, I don't expect it to change tomorrow. I don't see what that kind of observation has to do with religion at all.

You once again are begging the question. You claim that because that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past,so you have experienced times formerly known as the future we can call past futures. However there is no reason for an atheist to logically preclude that past futures have anything to do with future futures.

That's basically what I'm gathering. He's not making any sense. Its like he's trying to say, in a lot of words, that since we're not Christians, we don't know what logic is. But, rather than explaining how that is, he just uses more words to reiterate that statement without ever actually explaining how atheists can't know logic.

The reason you haven't understood my point is because you misunderstand the question friend. I am not asking a question about epistemology but rather ontology. I accept that you know what logic is, but you adhere to atheistic world view which leave your with Matter Time and Chance. The Laws of Logic are abstract, and Logical Absolutes are not dependent upon space, time, or people. Logical absolutes are universal. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature. Now explain to me how physics and chemistry can account for the existence of the Laws of Logic?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb

Because, as it pertains to gravity, its always been what it is. It's never changed. So, I don't expect it to change tomorrow. I don't see what that kind of observation has to do with religion at all.

You once again are begging the question. You claim that because that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past,so you have experienced times formerly known as the future we can call past futures. However there is no reason for an atheist to logically preclude that past futures have anything to do with future futures.

Why not?

The reason you haven't understood my point is because you misunderstand the question friend. I am not asking a question about epistemology but rather ontology. I accept that you know what logic is, but you adhere to atheistic world view which leave your with Matter Time and Chance. The Laws of Logic are abstract, and Logical Absolutes are not dependent upon space, time, or people. Logical absolutes are universal. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature. Now explain to me how physics and chemistry can account for the existence of the Laws of Logic?

Because we have brains that can learn and retain memory.

a reply to: Klassified

We can't know morals or ethics, either.

The moral argument isn't about epistemology but ontology. That is Christians don't say you can't know objective moral truths, but that you have no justification for them.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Klassified

We can't know morals or ethics, either.

The moral argument isn't about epistemology but ontology. That is Christians don't say you can't know objective moral truths, but that you have no justification for them.

I agree with you there. I don't believe in objective morality at all, actually. Why do I behave morally? Because our society is ordered with morals as its foundation, that without morals, society would break down and be unable to function cooperatively. So, we've developed agreements, or moral consensus, where we all agree to follow a code of conduct in order to fit in and remain part of the society. This is highly desirable because it allows us to prosper as individuals with the assistance from a greater collective. It is a survival instinct.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Why not?

Because you have no reason for believing that future futures will behave like past futures. Why do you have no reason? Because you have never experienced a future future. The burden of proof here actually falls on you in this situation. What reason do you have for believing that future futures will behave like past futures?

Because we have brains that can learn and retain memory.

Yes and brains and memory are just chemicals. The laws of logic don't require either of those two things to exist, so I ask again explain to me how physics and chemistry can account for the EXISTENCE of the laws of logic.

this thread is starting to smell - of presuppositionist manure

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb

Why not?

Because you have no reason for believing that future futures will behave like past futures. Why do you have no reason? Because you have never experienced a future future. The burden of proof here actually falls on you in this situation. What reason do you have for believing that future futures will behave like past futures?

Deductive reasoning. My reason is deduced from previous observations.

Because we have brains that can learn and retain memory.

Yes and brains and memory are just chemicals. The laws of logic don't require either of those two things to exist, so I ask again explain to me how physics and chemistry can account for the EXISTENCE of the laws of logic.

Memory is required for logic. So, you are incorrect. If you don't have past experiences to reflect on, you can't deduce what the future will hold. Memory may be just chemicals, but it is still memory. Logic is a mental function. It exists because we have brains that can predict and make comparisons.

You're failing to make a valid argument.

No one is going to walk away from this thread today, or any other day and say, "This guy just debunked atheism". Not because you have and we just refuse to "see the truth". But, because you haven't. I've been patient and listening to what you're saying. And, it just doesn't make any sense. Its illogical.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Why do I behave morally? Because our society is ordered with morals as its foundation, that without morals, society would break down and be unable to function cooperatively.

But as an atheist who believes that we are just evolved star dust you have no basis for calling anything wrong, and yet all humans bring a moral charge against another at some point. So you are claiming atheism and subjective morals, but live your life completely opposite to your world view.

So, we've developed agreements, or moral consensus, where we all agree to follow a code of conduct in order to fit in and remain part of the society. This is highly desirable because it allows us to prosper as individuals with the assistance from a greater collective

To say that society forms the basis of the moral consesnsus is to say that Hitler and the Nazis were justified in killing the jews because they thought it was good. They and their society thought it was good, so according to your belief it was morally correct to kill a jew if you lived in those times and in that society.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb

Why do I behave morally? Because our society is ordered with morals as its foundation, that without morals, society would break down and be unable to function cooperatively.

But as an atheist who believes that we are just evolved star dust you have no basis for calling anything wrong, and yet all humans bring a moral charge against another at some point. So you are claiming atheism and subjective morals, but live your life completely opposite to your world view.

Just because I believe morals aren't objective doesn't mean I don't think we should have them and it doesn't mean moral atrocities don't affect me negatively.

So, we've developed agreements, or moral consensus, where we all agree to follow a code of conduct in order to fit in and remain part of the society. This is highly desirable because it allows us to prosper as individuals with the assistance from a greater collective

To say that society forms the basis of the moral consesnsus is to say that Hitler and the Nazis were justified in killing the jews because they thought it was good. They and their society thought it was good, so according to your belief it was morally correct to kill a jew if you lived in those times and in that society.

No. What's morally correct for one isn't morally correct for another. That's subjectivity. It wasn't morally correct by my standards.

Hey OP how about slavery? Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say "Thou shalt not own another human being as property". In fact the Bible condones slavery and even has some guidelines for it. God permitted rape (captive wives as spoils of war) and accepted human sacrifice (Jephtah's daughter). God's a bigot towards homosexuals but apparently has no problem with it in the animal kingdom. Throughout the OT God commands the murder of people for often petty reasons, like not being a virgin on your wedding night (if you're a woman). Sure maybe a lot of that changed when Jesus came around but that leaves around 4,000 years or so (assuming you're a creationist) where the Old Testament God ran the show. (See my morality thread for more details)

Please, please, I beg you to tell me how morality comes from God and why he took so freaking long to say "turn the other cheek". And please explain to me how other cultures who had no knowledge or contact with God developed their morals. Thank you.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Deductive reasoning. My reason is deduced from previous observations

First of all you are not using deductive reasoning just because you put that word in a sentence. The question at hand requires the thinker to use inductive reasoning. You are moving from specific observations of the past and past futures in attempt to generalize what a future future(something you have never observed) might or might not do.

You also said that my reasoning comes from previous observations, but there is no way for you to observe a future future. Just because you have observed A and B together everytime you have observed them and never seen A or B alone does not prove that the next time we see A we will also see B.

Memory is required for logic. So, you are incorrect. If you don't have past experiences to reflect on, you can't deduce what the future will hold

Memory is required to preform logic(epistemology), but it isn't required for the existence(ontology) of Logical Absolutes(The Laws of Logic). For example, Lets say all life in the universe is no more. The Law of non-contradiction is still true and still exist even though there are no physical minds capable of understanding it. So no I am not incorrect you just keep attacking strawmans and begging the question. You need to focus on ontology and not epistemology.

Memory may be just chemicals, but it is still memory

Actually you can't prove that statement if you presuppose the first. If memory is just chemical reactions then all your memories could be the product of a chemical reaction and not an actual event that occurred in the past.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb
Actually you can't prove that statement if you presuppose the first. If memory is just chemical reactions then all your memories could be the product of a chemical reaction and not an actual event that occurred in the past.

Then, you can't be sure that the Bible even exists anywhere except your mind.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I won't respond with the old testament and its god (yahweh - the war god) but only the new testament and Jesus Christ and God (El - The Merciful Heavenly Father).

No where in the Bible does God or Jesus say "Thou shalt not own another human being as property".

Jesus did even better than just speaking against slavery. He said doing unto others as you would have them do to you, is not just a good idea but is God's Law and what his true prophets taught:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Please, please, I beg you to tell me how morality comes from God and why he took so freaking long to say "turn the other cheek".

Because these are two different gods. Yahweh is the war god of the ancient canaanites and El is The Most High, The Compassionate God, The Merciful Heavenly Father, The True God which Jesus spoke of.

It's interesting that the scriptures say that Jesus died on the cross saying "Eli, Eli Lema Sabachthani" not "Yahweh, Yahweh, lema sabachthani".

a reply to: smithjustinb

Just because I believe morals aren't objective doesn't mean I don't think we should have them and it doesn't mean moral atrocities don't affect me negatively.

Yea, but because you believe morals are subjective you have no real definition of a moral atrocity, and the fact that there star dust fizzing differently than your star dust upsets you shows that you don't always live as though you believe the world view you claim to adhere to. Define a moral atrocity from your world view and tell me why someone else aside from you should consider it wrong.

No. What's morally correct for one isn't morally correct for another. That's subjectivity. It wasn't morally correct by my standards.

But you just said a few post above that moral laws are based on society. If society is what determines right and wrong and the society of that time and place claimed that was the good thing to do, the according to your own world view(in that region and time) the morally correct thing to do was kill jews. So you are kinda flip flopping on your own world view here

a reply to: smithjustinb

Then, you can't be sure that the Bible even exists anywhere except your mind.

Well I don't believe we are just matter and chemical like you do, because I hold a different world view. One that isn't as internally inconsistent as the one your attempting to cling to.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Hey OP how about slavery? Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say "Thou shalt not own another human being as property". In fact the Bible condones slavery and even has some guidelines for it. God permitted rape (captive wives as spoils of war) and accepted human sacrifice (Jephtah's daughter).

You need to look at the Bible in its own context. The slavery the Bible talks about is something people willingly entered into as a form of paying off debt. Never dones the Bible condone slavery it only puts guidelines on it, and Jephta's daughter wasn't sacrificed but nice try.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb

Then, you can't be sure that the Bible even exists anywhere except your mind.

Well I don't believe we are just matter and chemical like you do, because I hold a different world view. One that isn't as internally inconsistent as the one your attempting to cling to.

Yeah, but just because you hold a different world view, doesn't mean I can't cite mine as proof that yours is wrong, does it?