Let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing? (mythology, agnostic)

[mmm...mabeynot]

I just wonder...if there were a big bang,or whatever you want to call it, what would be the trigger?

No time...then time...no space...then space.

There seems to me ...in my uneducated, ignorant mind, that there was no time for it to happen, and no place for it to happen.

And that (in my ignorant, uneducated, simple mind) begs the question of not why it happened, but what caused it to happen, and whay did it happen when it did.

Everytime i think about it in secular terms (and i did for years) i always think in a circle.

And if it has always been here (in some form or another), that means that anything that can happen will happen. Billions of trillions of years from now (putting it in secular terms, sooner or later), we will be right where we are right now, thinking we are doing the same thing we are doing now, but in reality, going through the same thing (with variations along the way) over and over again.

Simply because anything that can happen will happen...given enough time.

[JustNobody]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

First, a general observation. I've said that the atheist position involves courage, and I've never said that atheists are stupid, or that they have abandoned reason--I always maintain that atheists can be very intelligent people. I further suggested that faith also involves a kind of courage. In response I was told that faith compares to insanity, that it is cowardice and people of faith have basically abandoned reason. These are charges that seem to come up with regularity. So it seems it's not enough to simply say that faith is wrong, or that it is false, or whatever; some nontheists have to completely discredit the religious view. Doesn't this seem more like a visceral reaction than anything else? I have no problem with atheists or agnostics. But you respect a person by showing some respect for their views. When you can't seem to give any credit whatsoever to a view you disagree with, are you really respecting the person who holds that view? How is meaningful dialogue sustainable? As JustNobody might say, the only thing worth acting on is selfless love.

Neither atheism, nor theism are by default courageous, and you are one who threw up the idea that having faith is courageous, and you were suggesting that those who have faith are more courageous than those who don't. I called you out on your claim. I didn't say "faith compares to insanity"; I said certain kinds of absolute, untouchable faiths compare to insanity. Sorry, you aren't seriously expecting me to "respect", i.e. ignore/passively agree with the hatred and things that lead to hatred I see with religious people. If that is disrespecting religious people then fine. Hatred in all forms cannot be allowed. And our world is currently involved with a religious war between Christians(U.S. military is almost completely Christian and they hold regular prayors and a lot hate Muslims) and Jews versus Muslims, so forgive me if I tend to not care for the beliefs that lead to such distructive behavior. If children acted in such ways, they'd be sent to their room and/or grounded, but no, but because religious adults do such things, we must respect their beliefs.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I don't see passion as desire. Courage could be said to be a passion, but it's not a desire (though we may have a desire that coincides with courage). Following Plato we might say there are "three parts of the soul": the intellectual part, the appetitive part, and the passionate part.

I shall try and clarify a point of confusion in regards to passions. Desires result in changes in one's mental activity, that we call passions, and those passions can further be acted upon, resulting in easily observable behavior. If you kiss the girl(or guy) you love that kiss is love because it is acted purely out of love. And Plato was a mystic. One of the higher, meditative varieties though. It isn't really "three parts of the soul", it is varying components of our composite being, but that is another discussion.


I shall try and get to the rest of your comments later on.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by JustNobody

Neither atheism, nor theism are by default courageous, and you are one who threw up the idea that having faith is courageous, and you were suggesting that those who have faith are more courageous than those who don't. I called you out on your claim.

I don't know if any 'calling out' went on. You didn't like what I said. You tried to show that I was wrong. I stand by my claims. But I agree that neither atheism nor theism are courageous, since they're simply beliefs. Though I didn't say that one was more courageous than the other (Kierkegaard says that, I don't). There is a difference between belief and faith. I've tried to make that clear to you.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

I said certain kinds of absolute, untouchable faiths compare to insanity.

I'll take this as a clarification of your previous comments.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

Sorry, you aren't seriously expecting me to "respect", i.e. ignore/passively agree with the hatred and things that lead to hatred I see with religious people. If that is disrespecting religious people then fine. Hatred in all forms cannot be allowed.

I didn't suggest "respect" implies "blissfully ignore". Just be careful that your own zealous crusade doesn't turn into hatred, since "hatred in all forms cannot be allowed."

Look, you said something in a previous post I thought was great, though maybe a bit over the top (by my way of thinking). Basically, you advocated selfless love as the only morally worthy motive for action. If you really believe this, then wouldn't this imply some measure of respect for others, even if you think they believe dangerous things? I'm definitely not a pacifist. But respect for others seems necessary, especially in disagreements. And sometimes nobody will hear you if you talk to them without respect, or with arrogance, or if you belittle them, etc.--it just creates animosity. Wouldn't you agree?

In any event, my comments were primarily about discussions between people of various religious perspectives (believers, nonbelievers, etc). But you seem to want to justify being able to treat people with little respect if you think their beliefs are dangerous, or even if their beliefs can lead to dangerous places. Maybe this is a dangerous thing that you seem to advocate.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

I shall try and clarify a point of confusion in regards to passions. Desires result in changes in one's mental activity, that we call passions, and those passions can further be acted upon, resulting in easily observable behavior. If you kiss the girl(or guy) you love that kiss is love because it is acted purely out of love. And Plato was a mystic. One of the higher, meditative varieties though. It isn't really "three parts of the soul", it is varying components of our composite being, but that is another discussion.

This isn't clear yet. Even if desires produce passions, it doesn't follow that passions are simply identical with desires. Anyway, this is tricky stuff.

I look forward to your comments.

[GldnRule]

JustNobody::You opened up a can of worms with me brother, with your statement about our military and their current efforts. I'm a Vet myself. Been there, done that...proudly served...with humility and servitude. Do you really think our military men have religious motivations for what they are doing? There may be a few, but they are individual and very rare. The current opposing force is religiously motivated, but not the U.S. Our men and women are doing the job they signed up for and would do it anywhere they were deployed and ordered to do it. They serve the U.S., not some religion or hateful volition. You've labeled our military as a bunch of evil, hateful, vicious, killers. I take bigtime exception to that! We never came down on anybody that didn't have it comin to em. They start it (with us or others) and we finish it. Not only that, we are as cool as possible about it...with ultra-restrictive Rules of Engagement. If it was really the way you say it was, would we not bring our full force to bear? If it was about "hating Muslims", as you so ignorantly claim, we could have dealt with them without ever even showing up. Half a dozen ICBMs, with nuclear war heads, watch the mushroom clouds, and that's that. We could have done that in the fall/winter of 2001 and the world wouldn't have said jack-squat about it, except, "they should have known better than to directly attack the U.S., crashing those hijacked planes into their highest level commercial building (World Trade Center)and their highest level government building (Pentagon)". If it was about hating Muslims, that's what we would have done...but we didn't, because it's not...and for you to say that it is shows me what kind of person YOU are.

[JustNobody]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I didn't suggest "respect" implies "blissfully ignore". Just be careful that your own zealous crusade doesn't turn into hatred, since "hatred in all forms cannot be allowed."

You are making things about respect, when they initially weren't. You were trying to imply that people of faith were somehow being courageous for it; they aren't. I merely brought light to the less reputable sides of theism, which aren't courageous in nature. To me doing what is right is the only courageous thing; and the thing people hate most out of all things is to be confronted with the truth. When something is wrong, I call it for what it is. If your friend is about to get into a car completely wasted, you don't let him do it out of fear of not respecting him. Your whole respect issue speaks desperation in your argument as a last refuge in which to try and poke holes in my argument. I've seen theists say stop disrespecting my beliefs so many times that to me it is meaningless. People have for too long let violence and injustice be committed in the name of their religious beliefs and their God; it is about time someone speaks out against it. There is no "hatred" in my words as you think. Your calling my statement being disrespectful and implying that it leads to "hate" does injustice to the real hate and suffering that is going out in the world.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Look, you said something in a previous post I thought was great, though maybe a bit over the top (by my way of thinking). Basically, you advocated selfless love as the only morally worthy motive for action. If you really believe this, then wouldn't this imply some measure of respect for others, even if you think they believe dangerous things? I'm definitely not a pacifist. But respect for others seems necessary, especially in disagreements. And sometimes nobody will hear you if you talk to them without respect, or with arrogance, or if you belittle them, etc.--it just creates animosity. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm not "belitt[ing]" anybody; if you want to think that fine. Some things need to be said, otherwise people suffer and die. I try and be sensitive to people's feelings; but when you are trying a dance that people are afraid to even attempt, and you aren't really the best dancer yourself, toes get stepped on.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

JustNobody::You opened up a can of worms with me brother, with your statement about our military and their current efforts. I'm a Vet myself. Been there, done that...proudly served...with humility and servitude.

Grats.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Do you really think our military men have religious motivations for what they are doing?

More than you realize! Do you really think the soldier at Guantanamo bay and other secret military prisons who torture in many cases innocent Muslims for months or years on end are doing it because they believe in justice? see http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/CIA.pdf for one. Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban-Detainees. You should also consider looking up blackwater(private military contractor) U.S. Training Center - Training today to meet the challenges of tomorrow Xe Services . Also see Patriot Act.USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

Originally Posted by GldnRule

There may be a few, but they are individual and very rare. The current opposing force is religiously motivated, but not the U.S.

Considering the more religious and more southern sections of the U.S. sign up significantly more for the military than non-religious people, I beg to differ. And considering they are more likely to accept everything there leaders tell them, all I am asking is for you to think for yourself. Muslim terrorists are clearly the more hateful of the bunch, but there are religious motivations on all sides, as well as hatred among all the varying groups. Simple fact of the matter whether U.S. military personnel, who are predominantly practicing Christians, even if they don't hate Muslims, their religious beliefs are being used against them by the people in power. And that is what religious wars are really about, the people in power using religion as a tool to control the masses; and there are more ways to use someone's religion to control their behavior than just getting them to hate one group.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Our men and women are doing the job they signed up for and would do it anywhere they were deployed and ordered to do it. They serve the U.S., not some religion or hateful volition. You've labeled our military as a bunch of evil, hateful, vicious, killers.

Don't put words into my mouth; I never said such a thing. I said it is a religious war and it is. Bush was strongly religiously motivated; he thought he was acting according to the will of God; so even if all U.S. soldiers were atheists; it is a religious war. See USATODAY.com - Strain of Iraq war showing on Bush, those who know him say (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm - broken link)

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Not only that, we are as cool as possible about it...with ultra-restrictive Rules of Engagement.

Only recently since Obama came into office, but the war continues onward, and the longer it continues the greater chance it goes nuclear. Millions have died, not on our side, but still that is messed up, and hardly "restrictive".

Originally Posted by GldnRule

If it was really the way you say it was, would we not bring our full force to bear? If it was about "hating Muslims", as you so ignorantly claim, we could have dealt with them without ever even showing up. Half a dozen ICBMs, with nuclear war heads, watch the mushroom clouds, and that's that. We could have done that in the fall/winter of 2001 and the world wouldn't have said jack-squat about it, except, "they should have known better than to directly attack the U.S., crashing those hijacked planes into their highest level commercial building (World Trade Center)and their highest level government building (Pentagon)". If it was about hating Muslims, that's what we would have done...but we didn't, because it's not...and for you to say that it is shows me what kind of person YOU are.

First that is against international law and against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the U.S. signed. And if you think the rest of the world would have sat by and done nothing in response you are a fool. Iran would have at least speed up their development of nuclear weapons and to a degree they already have some limited nuclear ability; plus there is a good chance China and Russia would have gotten involved. And even if China and Russia didn't get involved nuclearly, they likely still would have sent troops and they would have begun massively increasing their nuclear stockpiles. Nuclear warfare is a zero-sum game for everyone at this point; once one country start, it would likely spread from one country to another till the world is nothing by a wasteland. Iraq didn't have anything to do with attacking us. And whether Muslim terrorists are the ones responsible for the attacks on the world trade center, pentagon, building 7 is a big if, especially in light of the obvious cover-up that has gone on.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

and for you to say that it is shows me what kind of person YOU are.

Honestly, I don't care what kind of person you think I am. And your comments show me what kind of person you are; rash to judgment; first to shoot; and easily manipulated by those smarter than him. The facts are the war isn't winnable - not the way the U.S. is going about it. Not only will the war not end, but tensions will escalate and the use of nuclear weapons becomes more likely. Enough warheads explode, not only will parts of the world be unlivable, but the sun will be blocked out, i.e. nuclear winter, and the air could become unbreathable. The warheads used on Japan are babies in comparison to what we have now. Nuclear warheads can also be snuck into countries, so really, this isn't a game worth playing. Mass communication and mass education is the only way to solve things in Muslim countries; without a serious dialogue, the world is in trouble.

And it really isn't about the soldiers; it is about our leaders who we aren't holding accountable. They can break whatever law and commit numerous crimes against humanity and we don't do anything about it.

[JustNobody]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I wasn't offended. But I thought you were trying to offend. There wasn't any "tone" for me to read. What I said was obviously existential, but the phrase "existential crisis" is thrown around today as a way of saying someone is "going through something."

I wasn't trying to "offend", only enlighten; sometimes light burns, but we can be made stronger because of it.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

The problem of causality is a big one. Establishing "causal links" between anything is difficult. And there are different senses of "cause." But in general your claim here is merely another way of affirming metaphysical naturalism (which involves the claim that the world is a closed system of physical causes and effects). But there are at least two ways in which to understand the relation between God and the world: (1) that God created ex nihilo, and (2) the world has always existed and God is the ultimate reason and explanation for its existence. In neither case do I see the need to establish a typical causal relation before we can say anything further (and in the first case there cannot be such a typical relation). I don't see pitting "natural" vs "supernatural" to be helpful here, as if we were talking about two different kinds of "substances," as they would say in the early modern period. I don't see why we have to carve reality up into two different, mutually exclusive causal realms: the "natural" and the "supernatural."

My claim has nothing to do with "affirming metaphysical naturalism" and everything to do with how religion affirms itself. But then you need to go back to the beginning of religion, where people claim to have seen God or angels or whatever and have spoken to God and other supernatural happenings and then they go and tell people about them. And this is the heart of religion, the seed of which the tree of religion grows, because if Jesus didn't know God and speak to God, then everything he said is a lie or a delusion, and any religion that is based on nothing but lies and/or delusion is a complete sham. And if he did know God and speak to God, well you have a casual link between God and the natural world. If religion holds any weight, your 1 and 2 can't be true. If Jesus can talk to God, so can you! Think about that; understand it; it can change your life - the entire way you see reality and specifically all religious faiths, and whether you should continue being a theist, and perhaps investigate more deeply, or move to the agnostic/atheist position.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Your suggestion doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

The existence of God "doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing". If God exists, then God is a kind of something, and then you are left with the same unsolvable paradox of "something rather than nothing". And then you are still left with for what purpose did God create the universe. What problem that either God or some being that is a friend of God, not physical obviously, could possibly be solved by the creation of a physical universe that couldn't be solved otherwise?

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Even if the universe is the product of another universe, or some other being that created our universe, the question would still hang. Only a necessary being can answer this question--if there is no necessary being, then there is no answer, and the world is ultimately unintelligible.

But maybe God exists but is a completely "unintelligible" thing innately, and cannot be anything, the absolute form of such being, other than "unintelligible". Our mind requires things to be intelligible, but maybe some things just aren't. I think the only way to know something "unintelligible" is to experience it personally. "Unintelligible" can't be described and can't be explained, but it could potentially be experienced.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I should have been more careful with my word choice. And about "proof," I'm not sure what you mean, since I was really only trying to articulate a way to understand faith.

You said something about atheists saying there is no proof of God, and that was incorrect of atheists to say, but if that is incorrect, where is said proof.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

It doesn't make it any clearer. These are claims, not arguments. What does it mean to say "faith is wrong"?

Meaning of "faith is wrong" means it is not in accordance with reality; it does not agree; it is not true; it is a kinda lie; it means if you act on your faith, bad things tend to happen. I think the meaning of "wrong" is clear!

Originally Posted by GldnRule

...

GldnRule, I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you. Let's just say war is bad; and continued war is an injustice to humanity. And I love the U.S. and I love the soldiers, and I don't want anyone more to die, and that includes Muslims. And there has to be a better way to solve the problem than continued killing of other people. I mean 8 years has gone by and trillions of dollars are gone. What are we expecting to accomplish? There has to be a better way!

[JustNobody]

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

I just wonder...if there were a big bang,or whatever you want to call it, what would be the trigger?

The same way all "big bang[s]" begin, with unsatisfied desire.

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

No time...then time...no space...then space.

There seems to me ...in my uneducated, ignorant mind, that there was no time for it to happen, and no place for it to happen.

And that (in my ignorant, uneducated, simple mind) begs the question of not why it happened, but what caused it to happen, and whay did it happen when it did.

You are closer than you think to understanding something most humans do not.

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

Everytime i think about it in secular terms (and i did for years) i always think in a circle.

Then don't think in secular terms. Think in non-secular terms or better yet think in both "secular" and non-secular "terms" at the same time.

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

And if it has always been here (in some form or another), that means that anything that can happen will happen. Billions of trillions of years from now (putting it in secular terms, sooner or later), we will be right where we are right now, thinking we are doing the same thing we are doing now, but in reality, going through the same thing (with variations along the way) over and over again.

Possibly...

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

Simply because anything that can happen will happen...given enough time.

Surprisingly, this is only partly true. Nothing can repeat itself exactly as before no matter how much time occurs, because things build up off of the past.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

This isn't clear yet. Even if desires produce passions, it doesn't follow that passions are simply identical with desires. Anyway, this is tricky stuff.

Ok, desires are the same as passions and they aren't the same as passions. Can you accept that? The two words are used as the same thing in conversation and they are used as slightly different things in conversations. Sometimes the cause, i.e. desire, is equating or indistinguishable from its effect, i.e. the impassioned behavior. And sometimes when people say passion, they mean those things only which are caused by emotions. Sometimes people mean their lustful passions, which is a mostly non-emotional, physical desire. And sometimes they refer to the actual act of which happens as a result of a desire, the movement of an increase in the expression of a desire. Sometimes the parts are equated with the whole and sometimes they aren't. People don't use the word very exactly because they don't tend to understand it very exactly and so the confusion we have. So if someone says passion, ask them what they mean because people mean something different in different circumstances.

[GldnRule]

JN:::I didn't "put words in your mouth"--You said, "our world is currently involved with a religious war between Christians(U.S. military is almost completely Christian and they hold regular prayors and a lot hate Muslims) and Jews versus Muslims"...if that's true our troops are hateful killers, conducting a Christian Crusade against Muslims (many doing it with personal zeal since "a lot hate Muslims"), and there's no other way to interpret what you wrote. Whenever you assemble a force the size of our military you are going to get a few that don't do the right thing...that's no reason to vilify the lot. The military conducts their operations and the focus is the mission, not some religious headtrip BS. "Winnable" isn't the best term for military success in the Middle East and the war on terrorism. Would you pull all the police out of N.Y.C. & L.A. because you could never "win the war on crime" by completely and permrnantly eradicating all the criminals? Yeah, that would be a good idea...disband the NYPD and LAPD and go with a program of communication and education of the Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, and criminals in general...that would "solve things". And Muslim terrorists were 100% responsible for 9/11...no "if" or "cover up" about it. Are you serious, clueless, or pulling chains?...I think the latter...your arguments are waaaay too off the wall for it to be otherwise.

I am an Army veteran from the Cold War era. I served under Reagan with the 2nd Armored Division, 522 Military Intelligence Battalion, Headquarters and Operations Co. out of Fort Hood, TX. My military occupational specialty was 98C--Electronic Warfare Signal Intelligence Analyst. We were responsible for the collection, analyzation, and dissemination of the info about the location, disposition, and intentions of the Soviet, P.R.C. and other foreign nuclear military operations. We combed through the information gathered from all sources and analyzed it to come up with factual determinations and sent it up to the National Security Agency. Stayed involved since. Opposing force nuclear military was my job...Probably best you stick to making statements about something you know something about, instead of something you think you know something about, but don't know much beyond general statements (known by 10 year olds) about how the nukes we have now are much, much better than the first ones ever made.

As far as your feeling about what I think of you...we're even...because I don't care that you don't care. I'm not about rash judgments, especially when no judgment is needed, and the acts against this country or in violation of U.N. Resolutions are starring me in the face. First to shoot if that's what's needed...never, if it's not. The only thing that manipulates me is my principles. "Smart" is relative...I've never not been "smart" enough to accomplish anything I needed to. I concur that we aren't holding the present leadership (if you can call them leaders) accountable.

Those sayings--Freedom isn't free-All gave some. Some gave all.-, etc...they tell it like it is...because freedom really isn't free. But you don't have to worry because the U.S. Military will continue to pick up the tab...even yours...as you vilify, defame, and slander them. We need to reinstate the draft for guys like you.

Way off topic...wrong board and thread for this...I'll not discuss it further...DISMISSED!!!!!

[JustNobody]

quote=GldnRule;13474850]JN:::I didn't "put words in your mouth"--You said, "our world is currently involved with a religious war between Christians(U.S. military is almost completely Christian and they hold regular prayors and a lot hate Muslims) and Jews versus Muslims"...if that's true our troops are hateful killers, conducting a Christian Crusade against Muslims (many doing it with personal zeal since "a lot hate Muslims"), and there's no other way to interpret what you wrote. Whenever you assemble a force the size of our military you are going to get a few that don't do the right thing...that's no reason to vilify the lot. The military conducts their operations and the focus is the mission, not some religious headtrip BS. "Winnable" isn't the best term for military success in the Middle East and the war on terrorism. Would you pull all the police out of N.Y.C. & L.A. because you could never "win the war on crime" by completely and permrnantly eradicating all the criminals? Yeah, that would be a good idea...disband the NYPD and LAPD and go with a program of communication and education of the Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, and criminals in general...that would "solve things". And Muslim terrorists were 100% responsible for 9/11...no "if" or "cover up" about it. Are you serious, clueless, or pulling chains?...I think the latter...your arguments are waaaay too off the wall for it to be otherwise. [/quote] Police is not military. It is not the same, not even close. The job of the military is to kill people. The job of police is to preserve the law. In the military it is about taking out military threats. There are no trials; in most cases people aren't brought in for questioning. You are clearly brainwashed and aren't thinking straight! We are occupying foreign countries; and it is only creating more hatred for our country and out of that hatred, the terrorists recruit in ever growing numbers. There is a difference between law and order and might makes right. You don't think Bush wasn't on some "religious headtrip", seriously? Read the article I quoted for you previously and stop talking about things you know nothing about. The military isn't designed for what it is expected to do. As far as 9/11 I've looked at the physics and it doesn't make sense. The NIST, who were responsible for investigating 9/11 were ordered not to find the truth about it. Obama gave Bush a presidential pardon, clearing him up of any criminal activity while in office. Something's clearly up. This all-out war way of going about things isn't sustainable. It is one thing to take out high priority military targets, and it is another to occupy countries and go after every petty criminal. And China is on its way to passing the U.S. up in the next few decades, while we fight an endless war against an opponent who is about as technologically unsophisticated as one could get.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I am an Army veteran from the Cold War era. I served under Reagan with the 2nd Armored Division, 522 Military Intelligence Battalion, Headquarters and Operations Co. out of Fort Hood, TX. My military occupational specialty was 98C--Electronic Warfare Signal Intelligence Analyst. We were responsible for the collection, analyzation, and dissemination of the info about the location, disposition, and intentions of the Soviet, P.R.C. and other foreign nuclear military operations. We combed through the information gathered from all sources and analyzed it to come up with factual determinations and sent it up to the National Security Agency. Stayed involved since. Opposing force nuclear military was my job...Probably best you stick to making statements about something you know something about, instead of something you think you know something about, but don't know much beyond general statements (known by 10 year olds) about how the nukes we have now are much, much better than the first ones ever made.

Considering I know the details of how an atomic bomb is made and I went to college for physics, so yeah, you know more than me.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Those sayings--Freedom isn't free-All gave some. Some gave all.-, etc...they tell it like it is...because freedom really isn't free. But you don't have to worry because the U.S. Military will continue to pick up the tab...even yours...as you vilify, defame, and slander them. We need to reinstate the draft for guys like you.

Don't give me this freedom crap. It isn't about freedom. Our country isn't the one occupied, and we've lost a lot of our constitutional freedoms in the process of this war. It is about power and it is about military companies making money. And the draft really worked during the Vietnam war; not having the draft was an astute choice by the military, which is one of the main reasons why the Vietnam War was so heavily protested, so your analysis is flawed.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Way off topic...wrong board and thread for this...I'll not discuss it further...DISMISSED!!!!!

You are the one who let out all your righteous indignation. I'm not one of your grunts; you don't order me around.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by JustNobody

You are making things about respect, when they initially weren't. You were trying to imply that people of faith were somehow being courageous for it; they aren't. I merely brought light to the less reputable sides of theism, which aren't courageous in nature. To me doing what is right is the only courageous thing; and the thing people hate most out of all things is to be confronted with the truth. When something is wrong, I call it for what it is. If your friend is about to get into a car completely wasted, you don't let him do it out of fear of not respecting him. Your whole respect issue speaks desperation in your argument as a last refuge in which to try and poke holes in my argument. I've seen theists say stop disrespecting my beliefs so many times that to me it is meaningless. People have for too long let violence and injustice be committed in the name of their religious beliefs and their God; it is about time someone speaks out against it. There is no "hatred" in my words as you think. Your calling my statement being disrespectful and implying that it leads to "hate" does injustice to the real hate and suffering that is going out in the world.

I'm not "belitt[ing]" anybody; if you want to think that fine. Some things need to be said, otherwise people suffer and die. I try and be sensitive to people's feelings; but when you are trying a dance that people are afraid to even attempt, and you aren't really the best dancer yourself, toes get stepped on.

You're wrong that "respect" was desperation in the face of your argument (what argument?). You're wrong that I was simply saying "stop disrespecting my beliefs." Total hogwash. A full-out argument is fine with me. But somehow in your mind (as evidenced in your above comments) you've connected "respect" with cowardice, with failing to stand up against injustice and meaningless violence (which have nothing to do with what we're talking about). I'm beginning to wonder if you can have any pleasant interactions with anyone you disagree with.

That's all I say about it. From now on I'll try to keep it at the level of ideas and philosophical discourse.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

My claim has nothing to do with "affirming metaphysical naturalism" and everything to do with how religion affirms itself.

You probably didn't mean to affirm metaphysical naturalism, but what you said is part of the definition of metaphysical naturalism.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

But then you need to go back to the beginning of religion, where people claim to have seen God or angels or whatever and have spoken to God and other supernatural happenings and then they go and tell people about them. And this is the heart of religion, the seed of which the tree of religion grows, because if Jesus didn't know God and speak to God, then everything he said is a lie or a delusion, and any religion that is based on nothing but lies and/or delusion is a complete sham. And if he did know God and speak to God, well you have a casual link between God and the natural world. If religion holds any weight, your 1 and 2 can't be true. If Jesus can talk to God, so can you! Think about that; understand it; it can change your life - the entire way you see reality and specifically all religious faiths, and whether you should continue being a theist, and perhaps investigate more deeply, or move to the agnostic/atheist position.

I have thought about it. A great deal. I'm still a theist.

And your claim that "if religion holds any weight, your 1 and 2 can't be true" needs more explanation.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

The existence of God "doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing". If God exists, then God is a kind of something, and then you are left with the same unsolvable paradox of "something rather than nothing". And then you are still left with for what purpose did God create the universe. What problem that either God or some being that is a friend of God, not physical obviously, could possibly be solved by the creation of a physical universe that couldn't be solved otherwise?

I'm not sure you're tracking the issues involved. If the universe "just is," then there is no answer, no possible answer, to why there is something rather than nothing. The universe would be a brute, unintelligible fact. There would be nothing to explain WHY, since the universe could have NOT existed. Why then does it exist? Very weird. How can all of existence just exist for absolutely no reason? Extremely odd, if not impossible. The only thing that could provide an explanation, a reason, for the existence of the universe, would be a necessary being, that is, a being that cannot not exist, a being that is not only eternal, but it is metaphysically impossible for it to not exist. Only such a being could explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

But maybe God exists but is a completely "unintelligible" thing innately, and cannot be anything, the absolute form of such being, other than "unintelligible". Our mind requires things to be intelligible, but maybe some things just aren't. I think the only way to know something "unintelligible" is to experience it personally. "Unintelligible" can't be described and can't be explained, but it could potentially be experienced.

Right. I don't think we will ever KNOW if there is an answer to "why," or what the reason is. But the theistic model provides that there is a reason, while the atheistic model rules it out as impossible.

Originally Posted by JustNobody

Meaning of "faith is wrong" means it is not in accordance with reality; it does not agree; it is not true; it is a kinda lie; it means if you act on your faith, bad things tend to happen. I think the meaning of "wrong" is clear!

"Wrong" is a word that can be taken in a multitude of ways. As you point out, it can be false, it can be morally evil, or morally bad. It can mean unpleasant, or not in accordance with reality. But these are all different claims, and therefore they all require different arguments.