U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 04-29-2011, 12:26 PM
3,614 posts, read 2,330,912 times
Reputation: 905


Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
That argument undercuts itself

Everything requires a cause.
To avoid infinite regress, there must be a first cause.
But this first cause is something that has no cause.
Therefore not everything requires a cause.
Therefore the premise is invalid.

If there is a being which does not require a cause, why shouldn't the universe itself be the first cause?
Quick reply to this message

Old 04-29-2011, 12:30 PM
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 9,124,525 times
Reputation: 3686
Default Hmmm... more endless silliness, again, repeatedly.

I just stopping by this bizzarre thread... A few thoughts...

Some very good comments on the OP's absurd positions: reiterated:

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
You don't understand science. What happened before the Big Bang is unknown. The Big Bang only says that the universe began in a hot dense state then began expanding.

What you're really doing is making a lot of strawman arguments and showing you don't understand science.

Also, you have no understanding of what a theory in science is. Evolution is a scientific theory which is what a lay person would consider a fact.

You need to an actual take physics class rather than getting your information from some biased religious source.
Well said, but then, instead of learning, fear takes over and the author takes to scampering away, hands over eyes and ears, tripping over his mis-steps.

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar View Post
Well, that's just about the dumbest site I've ever seen trying to refute atheism.

You do realize don't you, that atheism is ONLY the disbelief in a deity. That's it! Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no statement about the origin of the universe, or anything else that you've so naively listed.

Major, utter, complete FAIL.

Yep! This is a major misconstruction of almost all the Christian posters here. They love to conflate the incorrect, to mis-construe and mislead with strawman arguments that only appeal to the happily misinformed.

Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Actually atheism does make a major statement about origns. Atheism basically says that God did not create the Universe.
True, but who cares? your point? No God means He could hardly have been involved in any Creation event. In any case, the literalist claims are so impossible, and so easily debunked (all of it fully Poofo-Created, in a finished state, in just 6 days?

So... how come it's not in a finished state now? Thousands of galaxies are still in their formative phases, as molecular interaction laws predict. Then we go look, and guess what we find? Just what those laws predict. QED (look it up!). Don't be so stubbornly defensive and dense!

Originally Posted by jeffington View Post
And people used to say that theoretically, a helicopter can't fly. Well, if your "theory" omits 50% of the relevant theory, it can't, but obviously it can.

Obviously, evolution is fact - there is no doubt of it among any learned people (note: I did NOT say "indoctrinated" people.)

People who pull this stunt (attempting to say evolution is against such laws) have only a limited understanding of nature, and are to be dismissed as the crackpots they are.
But they seem to love endlessly re-confirming their stubborn ideas and illogical conclusions. wonder what it is about that position that they like so much. Oh yeah; I forgot: it's exactly that fear of death thing mentioned below.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post

The OP was caught on occasions before quite literally making up science entirely such as in this link here where it made up that earth is the only planet with oxygen and it made up that if you moved the earth a centimeter closer to... or further from... the sun vast climatic change would occur. These are not just wrong, nor are they just lies, but they are claims that are SO wrong that they are entirely absurd.

Essentially the OP has no evidence whatsoever for its claims that there is a god, and is quite happy to lie and invent science that does not exist, or to lie and twist existing science... whatever it takes to make it sound like it "fits" the claim that there is a god.

Worse, when the outright lies are pointed out... and they are still there for everyone to see in black and white... the OP Troll will for page after page deny or avoid anything to do with admitting the lies and the made up science. In fact on that thread I linked to it even made up more lies and false science to back up the first lot of made up lies and false science

The useful thing to note however is what this says about the trolls religion. The religion is so bad... so baseless... that the ONLY way the troll can support it is by outright lying. This says more about its religion than I EVER could. Sometimes I wonder if it is an atheist in disguise because it does more harm to its own religion than actual atheists on here do.
Well stated, and worth re-posting on the world's bathroom walls, where the truth often resides!

Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Explain the difference while I have my second cup of coffee.

Or are you saying that atheism does not basically say that God did not create the universe.
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but after 10 minutes of studying your post, I have to disagree. There is evidence of God, but some refuse to accept it.

Logically everything has a cause. It is illogical to say the universe "just came to be".

And no, people didn't just invent the spiritual world.
Actually, yes, by definition, they did. To whom else would you give credit ? Ever notice just how many different interpretations or definitions of that ghostly, intangible and variable spirit world there are? What does that tell your supposedly logical mind, Mr5150? That it's recognized by different cultures all over the world as a singular-version and true fact? Hardly.

The Creation version has been rather well debunked for it's inherent illogic and fairy-tale basis. But no problem: I'll state it: God did not "create" anything, since He doesn't exist. You'll just have to come up with a more logical reason, which is what science is always trying to do. This seems to bother you, despite the obvious advances in knowledge and understanding.

Examples??: what do you disagree with? Radio frequency emission science (and hence TV, radio, satellite communications?) What, they don't exist?

How about digital technology? iPods and iPhones? CAT scans? MRI's? all magic in your eyes?

Hows about solar nuclear physics? You deny all of this factual, well-proven stuff?

And yet, all this knowledge was acquired by exactly the same demanding methodlogy. It's been more than proven to work in finding things out, but when applied to Evolution or astro-physics, suddently, in specific applications or conclusions, it's suddently all wrong. As in ALL WRONG.

And you actually believe this, mr5150?

Well then you're selectively scientifically illiterate, apparently by choice.

Originally Posted by Violett View Post
Here's the thing: I would rather be wrong about God than be angry all the time like most atheists I know. I would rather be wrong and happy than right and angry.

But, I don't think I'm wrong about God.
You don't "think so", huh? Uhmmm.... good position. Hide from your fears. Join that quivering herd for a false sense of security for sure! (but just know this: coyotes and wolves love to find a nice convenient herd of sheep, BTW. Being in that bleating herd only gives a delusionary sense of security.) BTW though, as many of us horrid evil atheists have confirmed and corrected, we're generally very well adjusted and happy in our intellectual freedom. If you prefer to be burdened by falsehoods that have been rather easily debunked, that would be your preferred delusional state to live under.

Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
No one who is TRULY "sighted"...and subsequently "goes blind"...claims everything they saw when they were sighted "was all just an illusion".

You were like the child "playing house"...they act as though they are all grown up and own a home and are taking care of their babies...but they REALLY aren't...it's just all pretend.
But no one...who REALLY owns a home, has children they raise and take care of, etc...if they were to ever lose the children, home, and all the trappings...would say that the home, and the children, and all they did, were "hallucinations".

You are confused as to who was experiencing the "illusion/hallucination"...and who wasn't.

You never REALLY were on the "other side"...you were just "playing house"...and now claim NO ONE actually owns a house or raises children, and that all those ACTUAL homeowners and parents are just "hallucinating"...now that you realize you never REALLY did it yourself, and are obviously suffering some angst over that.
Oh come on Gldn (hi there, GTW...), you know better, as does Mystic. You're saying that a person who deviates from the greater Christian belief has lost his or her way? That gaining some particular factual knowledge that invariably leads away from Christian fairy-tales, represents some loss of truth, or that the person never knew the right answers in the first place?

That, my friend, is a load, and you know it

Fact: a badly designed unscientific story of fairies, angels, miracles and easily debunked Creation myths are presented to a bunch of scientifically illiterate children, along with some very vivid fear and retribution stories, all while they are in their very easily manipulated formative years. No wonder dogmatic Christians fight the intro of the facts of Evolution and modern geology in the high school, with no means to foil that factual instruction.

By the time those kids are in their late teens or early twenties, they are so convinced of God's penchant for vengeful wrath if they question his teachings that they are too scared to try to listen to any other logical alternatives, even when really good evidence is provided.

So, given their flock/herd mentality, they just give in intellectually,and meekly stick with the nonsense version. and they fight back fervently, since it's their false sense of security that's in jeopardy. Or, in the case of some of us, we fight out of those constraints, and learn the real truth.

Have a nice day, folks!
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 12:34 PM
13,000 posts, read 12,028,594 times
Reputation: 11926
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
The reasons why atheists don't believe in God is because I don't think they really understand what God is. They try to anthropomorphize Him too much. He's not a person.
Most religions anthropomorphize god.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 12:36 PM
13,000 posts, read 12,028,594 times
Reputation: 11926
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
Here's the thing: I would rather be wrong about God than be angry all the time like most atheists I know. I would rather be wrong and happy than right and angry.

But, I don't think I'm wrong about God.
I don't know any angry atheists actually. I am not angry at all and neither is my ds or my dd.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 12:37 PM
13,000 posts, read 12,028,594 times
Reputation: 11926
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
What she is saying is that one needs to have an open mind on the subject when examining the evidence.
What is this evidence? Oh, and this evidence has to be able to be examined by all humans.

Last edited by nana053; 04-29-2011 at 12:53 PM..
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 12:51 PM
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 9,124,525 times
Reputation: 3686
To Christians, "Open Mind" seems to mean that you are very selective in what you chose to accept, believe or demonize.

Certainly the theist's use of true, factual logic is highly selective, as has been more than shown up in many posts here. The entire idea that "nothing can come from nothing, and yet their God somehow did!", is a primo example at it's most obvious and basic.

And so, they simply deflect and deny. They have no good argument with which to fight back. And to them, that's perfectly OK...
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 12:52 PM
Location: Illinois
2,415 posts, read 1,920,679 times
Reputation: 336
Default who argues with a fool?

Not God.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 02:46 PM
4,846 posts, read 2,414,380 times
Reputation: 514
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
Ahh... and now GoldenRule plays the fallacy "no true Scotsmen".

You don't know me and you don't know what I have experienced, and it is inconceivable to you that someone who once experienced and thought about life as you do could ever later think about it differently. That is fine and understandable. I thought the same way back then. Perhaps, someday, you will see the light and see that it was all just an illusion, and you will someday be facing someone else who will claim that you never "really saw".

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)
A simpler rendition would be:
Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis. Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis! Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
I understand the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" just fine. And it works just fine in it's limited application.

To use your simplified example: It would only be a "fallacy" if, in fact, the students' contention that his uncle was a "True Scotsman", was 100% accurate. If he was mistaken...and his uncle really wasn't a true Scotsman...then that changes things, doesn't it?
I'm arguing from the standpoint that you only thought you were "sighted" (a true Scotsman)...but, you were mistaken.

It's true, I don't know you. But I know ME.
I was raised RC...ditched that in my early teens...lived as an Atheist for most of my life...recently gained the "sight" I hadn't had previously.
I KNOW what I now KNOW. That others may not...doesn't change what I KNOW.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 02:54 PM
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,086,155 times
Reputation: 588
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Atheists always boast that they only believe in science and logic
well .. let's put that statement to the test
1 - Atheism violates the first law of Newton
The first law of Newton says that "an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic)."
So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.
2 - Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics
Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it's present in the presence of the Creator.
3 - Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamic to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side .
The list contain 20 contradictions ..very interesting .. you should check it
Deep talk about atheism
I present the type of arguments presented by those who don't understand science or the English language...
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-29-2011, 02:55 PM
4,846 posts, read 2,414,380 times
Reputation: 514
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
0 - fallacy in ten seconds flat. Gldn really is gifted.

Gldn, you've never really been the sharpest tool in the shed (considering your gullibility to Mystic's 'theories'), but this takes the cake. I love reading your drivel, it puts a smile on my face.

That light is a projector, and the charade little more than Scoobie-Doo-esque monsters and ghosts.
I will admit I'm not the sharpest.

But I've always been sharp enough to make YOU my puppet...Thanx for the response Charlie McCarthy...ooooooops, I mean Konraden.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2016, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top