No, atheism requires nothing. Atheism is not an alternate view of how
life came to be. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims.
Early Christians were called atheists because they rejected pagan gods.
Are you suggesting early Christians "believed" in abiogenesis too?
Right, and the rejection of all religious claims renders life impossible without abiogenesis.
It's patently false to call a Christian an atheist by definition of the word. I'm not calling Muslims, Hindus, etc. atheists so I'm not following your analogy.
'It only delays the question of "What made the universe?" to "What made the creator of the universe?" '
Most Christians believe you're not supposed to try to put limits on God, a common doctrine is that man is limited in every way and God is limited in no way. To try to answer where God came from would imply he's limited in some way. I know that makes it kind of hard to argue with but whatevs.
Right, and the rejection of all religious claims renders life impossible without abiogenesis.
Nonsense.
What makes you think I need an explanation about how life originated? I don't know the answer to that question, I might never know the answer to that question, and whatever it might be is completely irrelevant to my ability to state that Christianity has not proven it's claims.
It's patently false to call a Christian an atheist by definition of the word. I'm not calling Muslims, Hindus, etc. atheists so I'm not following your analogy.
'It only delays the question of "What made the universe?" to "What made the creator of the universe?" '
You're stating the obvious.
I know full well that's how Christians see it, and they say that because they do not want to consider the irony of "everything needs a creator, except the bits I decide don't need a creator".
Most Christians believe you're not supposed to try to put limits on God, a common doctrine is that man is limited in every way and God is limited in no way. To try to answer where God came from would imply he's limited in some way. I know that makes it kind of hard to argue with but whatevs.
God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited.
"God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited."
It is not for us to decide what He can and can't do, no matter how obvious to us. You're obviously not familiar with how Christians see it.
You're incorrect. I'm very familiar with how Christians see their god. Specifically how they don't think too deeply into what baggage comes with there being a creator.
3.Sure. I'll repent. But to who? Protestantism? Catholicism? Islam? Buddhism? Sikhism? Jainism? Zoroastrianism? Seriously, you're one amoung dozens of religions.
4.How do you know that Allah isn't waiting for you after you die?
5.Let's suppose there's a god. Your god. He gave us the ability to reason. The most reasonable amoung us, the people who's job it is to reason, reject your god with astounding ferocity (93% of elite scientsts reject your god).
6.So, gives us the ability to reason, but gives no reason to believe in him.
With the above in mind, what exactly makes you think you're on the right side?
1. Hurts me?. Lol. My mind very easily grasps the concept. If anything, it hurts your mind to understand it. Ive already explained it in detail. 100% logic, cant argue with that. You`re in the dilemma, Not I.
2. Already proved everything .Thanks. Feel free to browse through the contents of this thread.
3. Repent to God. Not some religious sect.
4. "Arabia was a pagan nation that worshipped over 300 gods. One of those was
the moon god named, al-ilah. Legend has it that the moon god mated with the
sun god and had two daughters, both of whom were worshipped as goddesses.
When Muhammad claimed to have had his ‘vision’ and ‘revelation’ from Gabriel
he chose al-ilah as the god to build his army around.
Muhammad shortened the name, al-ilah, to Allah, and declared that he alone should be worshipped. He forbade the worship of the daughters.
To this day, a crescent moon can be found at the front of every mosque,
acknowledging that Allah was, and is the moon god...."
Used to be a Pagan religion. Corrupted version of the bible. The self-styled prophet has a questionable history. The Quran actually points to the Torah being the word of truth.
Again, below Muhammad attests to the Torah's authority. So, for Muslims to claim the Bible was corrupted is an argument already lost....
n Sura 5:48 we are told that Muhammad is given the Qur'an as a confirmation of the bible; that is - it is meant to prove the bible's authenticity....
In Sura 46:12 we are told.... "Yet before it there was the Book of Moses which was an authority, and a mercy. This (the Qur'an) is the Book confirming it in the Arabic tongue....."
Not going to go into all the details, because you will be struck by mysterious amnesia after anyway. History doesn`t lie. Facts are facts. The Torah is the coherent word of God. Long before the Arabic Quran, and the history of both can be studied.
No Allah(Thankfully, I much prefer becoming`G-G-G-G-ODLIKE` Over just 17 virgins anyway), No other Gods, No other religion, No other invention , Nothing.
6.http://bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm
But not only that, truth is the truth and it actually requires you to go digging a bit and sift here and there to uncover it and understand it. No secret knowledge or wisdom or anything like that. Most are simply inclined to believe strong delusions and lies because you believe BECAUSE you want to believe.
God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited.
Sure he could. Could he undo it after?, Yep. The first is not a limitation but it is a fullness of expression under constraints that can be changed. boolean CanLiftStone
Sure he could. Could he undo it after?, Yep. The first is not a limitation but it is a fullness of expression under constraints that can be changed.
boolean CanLiftStone
So he can both create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, and then lift it?
Nope, he can change it so that he could lift it again. That reading comprehension of yours. You`re not even factoring time and a few other things in your stone question.
Nice reply by the way, was short though.
You invent whatever you like.
That would be you, and your crazy theories. The way we see and know it:
God lives, God created everything(Including time, pause and figure it out, scratch your head etc), God is the God of the bible. <Truth. End of story. No inventions nothing from our side.
The problem with creationists is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Quote:
Nope, he can change it so that he could lift it again.
Which proves that God is not omnipotent, since he can't lift the rock in the first instance. Good job, you fail to give an adequate answer even when you resort to making up your own rules of logic.
Didn't think you guys would actually be gullible enough to tackle trick questions though. To save you further indignity I'll just link you to the "correct" answer: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm
Which still doesn't really help in the end because when you get to the core of it, theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science. Again:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Nope, he can change it so that he could lift it again. That reading comprehension of yours. You`re not even factoring time and a few other things in your stone question.
I didn't say "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, then reduce it's weight far enough so he can lift it, then lift it?"
I said "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Abiogenesis is not one of a thousand perspectives, it is the modern iteration of one of two possibilities. Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always. For original life to have always been requires God. Therefore, atheism requires abiogenesis.
Quote:
What makes you think I need an explanation about how life originated? I
don't know the answer to that question, I might never know the answer to
that question, and whatever it might be is completely irrelevant to my
ability to state that Christianity has not proven it's claims.
Everything here is correct but it doesn't address my argument, which is simply...
Quote:
they don't think too deeply into what baggage comes with there being a creator
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage." You only think otherwise by your insistence that he had to have been created, instead of always being there.
theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science.
Not really. Atheists attempting to delve onto contradictions in this universe is a nonsensical approach. Almost as nonsensical as multiverse!. Who comes up with this hogwash?. Oh yea, I know who.
Again:
True that and I agree, but at the end of the day, My God created the laws of Science. You`re missing a step.
I said "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Define heavy. On what scale are we talking?. Lets call it X. Otherwise you`re playing on contradictions.
No. That would be a limitation. It requires energy to `lift` a stone, and since he is infinite (beyond the universe remember), there is no such limitation to him. NOT being able to do something is a limitation. The stone can grow infinite in size and it would always be under his control. He can simultaneously create this stone to X and be able to move it. That is not a limitation. a limiting condition; restrictive weakness; lack of capacity; inability or handicap:
If you`re going to persist with this logic, Then please define the weight of the stone in every instance of your question. The number can be as high as possible, and I will always answer "Yes he can lift that".
The fact that he can do all things already means he cant NOT be able to do all things. The stone can never surpass the energy and power of God because God is God and the stone is a stone. No contradictions. If it were any other way, then the stone is not really a stone, and God is not really God, and you`re not really understanding the question you are asking.
Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always.
Prove it. While you're at it, prove that God wasn't created. You're the one insisting everything needs to have a cause (even though we know that not all things do). So prove that God is exempt from this and give me a better reason than "because I said so" or "because we defined God that way".
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage."
Sure, because it's a total cop-out and a non-answer. Of course giving up and saying "it was magic" is going to have alot less baggage than actually going out and working to find the right answer. Too bad that your "answer" has as much non-evidence for its validity as Zeus, Thor, and Santa Claus, which also don't require baggage. Therefore, God deserves to get shelved right next to all these fantastical things until we get proof that it shouldn't.
Abiogenesis is not one of a thousand perspectives, it is the modern iteration of one of two possibilities. Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always. For original life to have always been requires God. Therefore, atheism requires abiogenesis. Quote:
What makes you think I need an explanation about how life originated? I don't know the answer to that question, I might never know the answer to that question, and whatever it might be is completely irrelevant to my ability to state that Christianity has not proven it's claims.
Everything here is correct but it doesn't address my argument, which is simply... Quote:
they don't think too deeply into what baggage comes with there being a creator
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage." You only think otherwise by your insistence that he had to have been created, instead of always being there. Quote:
The next time you ask someone "What's so different about Christianity?" or "Why Christianity and not X or Y?" refer to this article for starters.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I need to know where life came from. God is the simplest answer."
I don't need to know where life came from in order to be an atheist.
Atheism does not require abiogenesis. That's flat out retarded and doesn't even make sense. Atheists have been around for tens of thousands of years. Do you sincerely think they all believed in abiogenesis?
I insist God requires a creator because you insist the universe requires a creator. It's that simple.
You don't appear to understand what atheism is. Atheism is not an alternate view of how life came to be. Atheism is simply "Religion? Ah. Sure. Come back when you can prove it."
Atheism does not require abiogenesis. That's flat out retarded and doesn't even make sense. Atheists have been around for tens of thousands of years. Do you sincerely think they all believed in abiogenesis?
Whatever atheists didn't take atheism to its foregone conclusion, as you aren't at present, has no bearing on the argument, "retarded wand" waving notwithstanding.
Quote:
I insist God requires a creator because you insist the universe requires a creator. It's that simple.
Based on our current understanding, the universe doesn't require a creator. It's the life inside it that does.
Right, and the rejection of all religious claims renders life impossible without abiogenesis.
It's patently false to call a Christian an atheist by definition of the word. I'm not calling Muslims, Hindus, etc. atheists so I'm not following your analogy.
@Eiviyn: Go
Just giving some input here.
'It only delays the question of "What made the universe?" to "What made the creator of the universe?" '
Most Christians believe you're not supposed to try to put limits on God, a common doctrine is that man is limited in every way and God is limited in no way. To try to answer where God came from would imply he's limited in some way. I know that makes it kind of hard to argue with but whatevs.
I think we defied god when we went to the moon. It's not really good for humanity's reputation if he does exist.
Nonsense.
What makes you think I need an explanation about how life originated? I don't know the answer to that question, I might never know the answer to that question, and whatever it might be is completely irrelevant to my ability to state that Christianity has not proven it's claims.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/11/09/breaking-news-early-christians-were-impious-atheists/
Please don't let an atheist educate you on the history of your own religion.
You're stating the obvious.
I know full well that's how Christians see it, and they say that because they do not want to consider the irony of "everything needs a creator, except the bits I decide don't need a creator".
God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited.
@Eiviyn: Go
"God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited."
It is not for us to decide what He can and can't do, no matter how obvious to us. You're obviously not familiar with how Christians see it.
You're incorrect. I'm very familiar with how Christians see their god. Specifically how they don't think too deeply into what baggage comes with there being a creator.
"God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited."
He can but only if he subjects himself to a realm where there is weight and strength and etc. Or our universe for example.
Jesus falls 3x carrying a cross.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
1. Hurts me?. Lol. My mind very easily grasps the concept. If anything, it hurts your mind to understand it. Ive already explained it in detail. 100% logic, cant argue with that. You`re in the dilemma, Not I.
2. Already proved everything .Thanks. Feel free to browse through the contents of this thread.
3. Repent to God. Not some religious sect.
4. "Arabia was a pagan nation that worshipped over 300 gods. One of those was
the moon god named, al-ilah. Legend has it that the moon god mated with the
sun god and had two daughters, both of whom were worshipped as goddesses.
When Muhammad claimed to have had his ‘vision’ and ‘revelation’ from Gabriel
he chose al-ilah as the god to build his army around.
Muhammad shortened the name, al-ilah, to Allah, and declared that he alone should be worshipped. He forbade the worship of the daughters.
To this day, a crescent moon can be found at the front of every mosque,
acknowledging that Allah was, and is the moon god...."
Used to be a Pagan religion. Corrupted version of the bible. The self-styled prophet has a questionable history. The Quran actually points to the Torah being the word of truth.
Again, below Muhammad attests to the Torah's authority. So, for Muslims to claim the Bible was corrupted is an argument already lost....
n Sura 5:48 we are told that Muhammad is given the Qur'an as a confirmation of the bible; that is - it is meant to prove the bible's authenticity....
In Sura 46:12 we are told.... "Yet before it there was the Book of Moses which was an authority, and a mercy. This (the Qur'an) is the Book confirming it in the Arabic tongue....."
Not going to go into all the details, because you will be struck by mysterious amnesia after anyway. History doesn`t lie. Facts are facts. The Torah is the coherent word of God. Long before the Arabic Quran, and the history of both can be studied.
No Allah(Thankfully, I much prefer becoming`G-G-G-G-ODLIKE` Over just 17 virgins anyway), No other Gods, No other religion, No other invention , Nothing.
5. The people`s who`s job it is to reason?. Ahahahahahahahaha^infinity. On what grounds is this reason based on?
93% of elite scientsts reject your god
Already discussed this before. Its also bible prophecy
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/3-19.htm
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-20.htm
http://bible.cc/romans/1-22.htm
6.http://bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm
But not only that, truth is the truth and it actually requires you to go digging a bit and sift here and there to uncover it and understand it. No secret knowledge or wisdom or anything like that. Most are simply inclined to believe strong delusions and lies because you believe BECAUSE you want to believe.
@Eiviyn: Go
God is limited. Could he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? One way or the other, he's limited.
Sure he could. Could he undo it after?, Yep. The first is not a limitation but it is a fullness of expression under constraints that can be changed.
boolean CanLiftStone
So he can both create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, and then lift it?
I think this about sums up creationists.
You invent whatever you like.
@Eiviyn: Go
Nope, he can change it so that he could lift it again. That reading comprehension of yours. You`re not even factoring time and a few other things in your stone question.
Nice reply by the way, was short though.
You invent whatever you like.
That would be you, and your crazy theories. The way we see and know it:
God lives, God created everything(Including time, pause and figure it out, scratch your head etc), God is the God of the bible. <Truth. End of story. No inventions nothing from our side.
@Eiviyn: Go
Refer to what Gna said too.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe problem with creationists is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Which proves that God is not omnipotent, since he can't lift the rock in the first instance. Good job, you fail to give an adequate answer even when you resort to making up your own rules of logic.
Didn't think you guys would actually be gullible enough to tackle trick questions though. To save you further indignity I'll just link you to the "correct" answer: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm
Which still doesn't really help in the end because when you get to the core of it, theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science. Again:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
I didn't say "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, then reduce it's weight far enough so he can lift it, then lift it?"
I said "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Do you ever actually answer questions?
Abiogenesis is not one of a thousand perspectives, it is the modern iteration of one of two possibilities. Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always. For original life to have always been requires God. Therefore, atheism requires abiogenesis.
Everything here is correct but it doesn't address my argument, which is simply...
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage." You only think otherwise by your insistence that he had to have been created, instead of always being there.
The next time you ask someone "What's so different about Christianity?" or "Why Christianity and not X or Y?" refer to this article for starters.
@Gradius12: Go
theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science.
Not really. Atheists attempting to delve onto contradictions in this universe is a nonsensical approach. Almost as nonsensical as multiverse!. Who comes up with this hogwash?. Oh yea, I know who.
Again:
True that and I agree, but at the end of the day, My God created the laws of Science. You`re missing a step.
I said "Can he make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Define heavy. On what scale are we talking?. Lets call it X. Otherwise you`re playing on contradictions.
No. That would be a limitation. It requires energy to `lift` a stone, and since he is infinite (beyond the universe remember), there is no such limitation to him. NOT being able to do something is a limitation. The stone can grow infinite in size and it would always be under his control. He can simultaneously create this stone to X and be able to move it. That is not a limitation.
a limiting condition; restrictive weakness; lack of capacity; inability or handicap:
If you`re going to persist with this logic, Then please define the weight of the stone in every instance of your question. The number can be as high as possible, and I will always answer "Yes he can lift that".
The fact that he can do all things already means he cant NOT be able to do all things. The stone can never surpass the energy and power of God because God is God and the stone is a stone. No contradictions. If it were any other way, then the stone is not really a stone, and God is not really God, and you`re not really understanding the question you are asking.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumProve it. While you're at it, prove that God wasn't created. You're the one insisting everything needs to have a cause (even though we know that not all things do). So prove that God is exempt from this and give me a better reason than "because I said so" or "because we defined God that way".
Sure, because it's a total cop-out and a non-answer. Of course giving up and saying "it was magic" is going to have alot less baggage than actually going out and working to find the right answer. Too bad that your "answer" has as much non-evidence for its validity as Zeus, Thor, and Santa Claus, which also don't require baggage. Therefore, God deserves to get shelved right next to all these fantastical things until we get proof that it shouldn't.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I need to know where life came from. God is the simplest answer."
I don't need to know where life came from in order to be an atheist.
Atheism does not require abiogenesis. That's flat out retarded and doesn't even make sense. Atheists have been around for tens of thousands of years. Do you sincerely think they all believed in abiogenesis?
I insist God requires a creator because you insist the universe requires a creator. It's that simple.
You don't appear to understand what atheism is. Atheism is not an alternate view of how life came to be. Atheism is simply "Religion? Ah. Sure. Come back when you can prove it."
Without [the antithesis of original life, always], there has to be original life, always.
Explain the rationale behind espousing "no cause" over "heretofore unknown cause."
Whatever atheists didn't take atheism to its foregone conclusion, as you aren't at present, has no bearing on the argument, "retarded wand" waving notwithstanding.
Based on our current understanding, the universe doesn't require a creator. It's the life inside it that does.