Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You didn't answer my question about society.
God is not arbitrary, because He is not some
Prejudicial Conjecture or
Unargued Philosophical Bias.
I have argued and still continue, reason is only possible with the Biblical God. Reason is possible therefore, the Biblical God exists.
"Until you can, we have no basis to continue a discussion involving objectivity." No basis?
Do you mean an objective basis for continuing a discussion involving objectivity?
If it is subjective, then that is your basis, and I wouldn't need to be enslaved to your forced morality.
So Witness …. Still here then….
If you are hanging around perhaps we can explore your strange “beliefs” a little more.
You present as a bible believing christian , a young earth creationist and ,it seems , a sometime wannabe apologist. You seem to believe in an inerrant bible.
If my caricature of you is correct , I wonder can you explain how is it you manage to overlook the many glaring inaccuracies and contradictions in your book.?
Do you truly not see them or is it will-full ignorance ?
I believe there are no contradiction in the Bible. But however, seeing you as an atheist, I wonder why contradictions bother you?
Are you willing to put your belief in Biblical inerrancy to the test? Here's a list of 493 contradictions: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
And you didn't answer my question about why contradictions bother you?
Not saying I agree with everything this guy says, but he makes some points.
First of all, you didn't ask me that question. That was asked to another member. Second, I have no need to answer a question that assumes it bothers me. It doesn't. Not to put to fine a point on it, but that train of thought and discussion is not rational and not worth any more of my time.
In other words, no, you aren't willing to put it to the test. That's a hallmark of faith.
So, since you're not here to explore your own beliefs, are you here merely to challenge our unbelief with arguments that you apparently think are novel and iron-clad but which most of us have heard so often we're tired of even addressing them?
Precisely! Thank you! I am in the midst of reading this entire thread as I'm new around here. I have seen this kind of person as the OP in so many places. Perhaps he has doppelgangers walking about? Wait. I don't believe in doppelgangers, except perhaps in a kind of sci-fi thing.
The thing I dislike about discussions like this is that try as we might to get this person (that pretends to beg us to explain ourselves) to understand us, we will never be able to change the his/her mindset. Let's see if my prediction holds at the end of the thread. I just had to say something now and this was a perfect comment to use to do so. Thank you for the opportunity.
You asked me watchman that particular question....
it seems it wasn't just this sites lack of rules you missed...but also the fact that this site caters for Atheists from across the globe.....I my self am in the UK ....and thus in a different time zone ... this accounts for the extended nature of our threads.....
Sorry I couldn't be here for you....but then that's just one of the things you theists have to come to terms with......
things ain't run for your benefit.
Regarding contradictions in the Bible, I'm amazed that no one posted the link to BibViz:
"I wonder why contradictions bother you?"
Contradictions do not bother me in the slightest..... Far from it ....
they are part of the proof that the bible is nothing more than a man made fabrication.
Alongside the misrepresentations ,the fallacies and the downright lies ,contradictions can be used to demonstrate the untruth of your religion.
What puzzles me is how "believers" manage to delude themselves into believing the lie.
Here is a witty bit for you. Here in america in 2008 it was said that Obama would become president when pigs fly, He became president and then we had the swine flu.
Perhaps it would be better to ask why in your worldview, are contradictions irrational? Why is there such a thing as the law of non-contradiction?
“Perhaps it would be better to ask why in your world-view, are contradictions irrational? Why is there such a thing as the law of non-contradiction?”
I believe I pointed out to you earlier in your sojourn here that what you think you know about atheists is wrong.
Yup here it is…..”You don’t understand …because you have preconceived ideas of what atheists are and how we think….Your ideas are wrong !” from 24/02
So….. as far as I can see ….no one (other than yourself) has said that contradictions are irrational.
No the problem with the contradictions (from your view point ) is that they prove the bible to be false and certainly NOT inerrant …. As you claim.
Again I think I said earlier…..
“Alongside the misrepresentations ,the fallacies and the downright lies , contradictions can be used to demonstrate the untruth of your religion.
What puzzles me is how "believers" manage to delude themselves into believing the lie.”
You see …the ONLY source for Jesus and Jehovah and all the rest of the pantomime characters is the bible. And to steal a quote from your little novella….. your house is built on sand.
I note that you fail to engage any poster on actual quotes but merely pass quickly over them before using “the theist two step” to switch the subject.
So I assume you yourself know that once you’ve nailed your colours to the mast on any given verse / verses you are pretty much stuffed.
Back on post 24 you ignored “the Pragmatic” reference to Matthew 5:18-19….. then side slipped off onto something else.
For all your word games and semantics I do wonder if you are actually capable of defending your religion or merely making a nuisance of yourself.
Like you got banned for over on AtheistForums....
Sorry, I didn't see that you had posted back here, that is why it has taken me so long to respond.
So you honestly disagree, and believe that contradictions are rational?
Then you go and say, because there are contradictions in the Bible it proves it is irrational. Wait a minute, if contradictions are rational, then the fact that the Bible has them proves it's rationality. Or are you going to say that contradictions are irrational after all?
Again, the reason the Biblical God exist is because without Him, reason wouldn't be possible. Reasoning is dependent on universal, invariant, laws of logic, which are dependent on the Biblical God.
I am not trying to make a nuisance of myself, but in your worldview why would that be wrong? After all if we are just chemical accidents, why is it wrong for me to make a nuisance of myself? Chemical don't have a choice. You wouldn't punish vinegar for reacting with baking soda.
Sorry, when I click on the link it doesn't let me view what they are saying over there. I do appreciate the fact that the people here are a little more tolerant to other points of view.
Oh dear Witness ……
Oh dear, oh dear … still no surprise here …..
” Then you go and say, because there are contradictions in the Bible it proves it is irrational.”
I’d be obliged if you would tell me just where I said this…..
You seem to be trying to re-write our exchanges.
Do you not see this as a little dishonest?
Where is the much vaunted Christian morality?
No I do not see the contradictions as irrational …..
I see them as perfectly rational and consistent.
Consistent with the fact that the bible, indeed your cult in its entirety, is totally man made, false and based on nothing more than lies.
You say ,
”Again, the reason the Biblical God exist is because without Him, reason wouldn't be possible.”
Nonsense…..your god does not exist …he/she or it never has done.
“Reasoning is dependent on universal, invariant, laws of logic, which are dependent on the Biblical God.”
Arrant nonsense …. Laws of logic are not dependent on any god ….they don’t exist. None of them.
Then ,in your attempt to justify your arrogant behaviours ,you go on…
“but in your worldview why would that be wrong?”
There you go again….
You know nothing of my “world view” …..
stop trying to stereotype me to some comic book image of atheism that you have conjured from your febrile imagination ….
YOU know nothing of atheism.
“why is it wrong for me to make a nuisance of myself? Chemical don't have a choice. You wouldn't punish vinegar for reacting with baking soda.”
True enough….but you are not a chemical you are supposed to be a sentient being…..
YOU are responsible for what YOU are
and most of all for the choices YOU make.
YOU choose your behaviours…..
at least try to take responsibility for them.
I’ll leave it there for now….. but I will be back tomorrow to await your showing me just where I said that “contradictions prove the bible is irrational”.
Or your admission that you told an untruth.
"No the problem with the contradictions (from your view point ) is that they prove the bible to be false and certainly NOT inerrant …."
My apologies, I misinterpreted your statement. I think.
Yes, from my point of view it would, but certainly not from your point of view, in fact even if it is a problem for me, it shouldn't be a problem at all for you that it is a problem for me.
"Laws of logic are not dependent on any god ….they don’t exist. None of them." which don't exist laws of logic or gods?
So do you believe in the Law of Non-contradiction?
When speaking of your worldview I was not, (emphasis on not) meaning some preconceived atheist worldview. I was meaning, your, meaning, your personal, the one that you actually hold. Watchman's worldview.
"but you are not a chemical you are supposed to be a sentient being" What does me having senses have to do with anything? You don't punish a Lion (which has senses) for killing an antelope. That is just his instinct.
"YOU are responsible for what YOU are" I have to ask, responsible to whom?
"So do you believe in the Law of Non-contradiction?"
All the law of noncontradiction depends on is existence, the mere fact that something exists means it cannot not exist, which is the foundation for that "law". Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You are taking the properties of existence itself(the "logical laws") and pretending that instead of being the natural ontological repercussion of this existence, it somehow depends on your deity of choice, which is completely vapid and asinine.
I know the law of non-contradiction exists, but why does it exist? To say, it exists because it exists, would be like be saying, "God exists because He exists." That gets nowhere fast.
No, it is a property of existence. Existence itself creates the law of non-contradiction, because something cannot both exist and not exist, meaning that the origin of non-contradiction IS existence itself. The very moment something exists, it cannot also not exist, creating this "law" you want to pin on your god. There are no gods necessary to explain something that is a ontological result of existence, no matter how much you might want there to be so. All concepts like quantity, semantics, and the logical laws are an ontological result of existence. They do NOT exist without the universe, and there may actually be wackier parts in our universe were they bend almost to breaking, because it is intricately tied to the universe itself. This means that they are not eternal, and not uniform, despite your desire for them to be so.
I disagree with your definition of the law of non-contradiction. That is an example of the law of non-contradiction not the law itself. The law itself states, "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time" ~wikipedia
However, If as you say that the law of non-contradiction says that something cannot both exist and not exist, couldn't it be said that the very moment something is non-existent this law exists? Isn't it then a property of non-existence? and that non-existence created the law of non-contradiction? Because something cannot both not exist and exist, meaning that the origin of non-contradiction is non-existence itself? The very moment something doesn't exist, it cannot also exist. Therefore this law had to exist before the universe existed, the universe's un-existence called for the law. This law had to exist without the universe. This mean that laws of logic are unchanging, uniform, despite your desire for them not to be so.
In order for anything to exist, first there must be something for it to exist within. Nonexistence cannot originate anything, for if anything exists(even this law you are so fond of), it doesn't by definition. Something cannot exist within nonexistence, now you are just doing mental gymnastics to cover a flaw you are incapable of fixing. This goes equally for the logical laws and your god. They are dependent on existence to exist, so they are neither uniform or unchanging, despite all your desires to justify otherwise.
And what is existence dependent upon?
If we knew that, then there would be no cosmological argument. No one, not one, knows. The difference here is that some people pretend that they do, which is utter arrogance and folly, and irritates those of us who understand that it cannot be known to the point of screaming. It would be like someone declaring proudly that they understand the laws of physics at the planck length(yes,they are not entirely uniform, as they are different at this scale), which no one does, and continuing to do so despite the greatest minds in the world correcting them. It is a display of ignorance, Dunning-Kruger personified, and it goes to show that if you should study in-depth before you say something stupid.
So are you an agnostic when it comes to why there is existence?
I believe we may be confused when it comes to existence, are you talking about nothing, or just not any material substance?
You see, the moment there is nothing, at that same moment the law of non-contradiction has to exist. Therefore there never was a time when there was nothing because the law of non-contradiction has always and must have always existed.
"So are you an agnostic when it comes to why there is existence?"
A. You are attempting to change scope, why implies purpose or intent, whereas it simply isn't justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that I am agnostic about how existence came about, if it even did in the first place.
B. It isn't so much simply about agnosticism, it is about having a thorough enough understanding of the subject to confirm that it simply isn't known with any degree of certitude whatsoever. It isn't simply about me stating that I don't know, it is every single applicable and relevant field of science telling anyone with the care to study it that we simply do not know.
"I believe we may be confused when it comes to existence, are you talking about nothing, or just not any material substance?"
You should have deduced what I meant immediately from the context. I meant the absence of existence.
"You see, the moment there is nothing, at that same moment the law of non-contradiction has to exist."
Nope, the nonexistent need not have any laws, as it is impossible for it to interact in any describable way. The "law" of noncontradiction is a concept, a description of how we observe existence behaving, and does not exist outside that context anymore than Bilbo exists outside the Tolkien novels. The behavior we describe may, in fact, not apply outside of our observable universe, we simply do not know. As far as nothing, true nothing, we have never been able to observe it or document it. It may not actually exist, we can't make any observations to assess it properties, and talking about it as if it were a thing is like chasing your own tail. The very moment you treat nothing as if it were a thing, you have voided the concept entirely.
"Therefore there never was a time when there was nothing because the law of non-contradiction has always and must have always existed."
See, chasing your own tail, assessing properties to something that has none by definition. You might as well be talking about colorless pink things while you are at it, it is an oxymoronic argument, and voids itself.
Do you believe it is possible for you to be wrong about the "fact" that it is impossible to know how existence came about?
"It isn't simply about me stating that I don't know, it is every single applicable and relevant field of science telling anyone with the care to study it that we simply do not know." So are you saying that the evidence proclaims uncertainty? and that we can't know?
"the nonexistent need not have any laws, as it is impossible for it to interact in any describable way." Do you then believe that the existent needs to have laws? Are you then agreeing with the Stephen Hawking theory of a self creating universe?
BTW I agree with you, many people out there try to describe nothing, however, the moment you define nothing it becomes something.
"Do you believe it is possible for you to be wrong about the "fact" that it is impossible to know how existence came about?"
Nope. As I said before, it isn't simply a statement of agnosticism, it is a statement on the state of evidence a demonstrability. Until someone can demonstrate how existence came about(which no one can), and support that demonstrations with evidence(which no one can), one cannot say that they know. Knowledge isn't belief, it is demonstrable and evidential, if neither can be provided then it isn't knowledge.
"So are you saying that the evidence proclaims uncertainty? and that we can't know?"
At the current state, there isn't enough evidence to even demonstrate or prove exactly what all existence is, it probably has many properties and dimensions we know nothing of. Given that, how could one claim to understand all of reality well enough to make proclamations of its origins? One can't. Anyone who does is being deceptive, either intentionally or mistakenly, through ignorance or arrogance. We barely understand a small fraction of the reality that we inhabit, and even that understanding is tentative and likely to change as we learn and grow, The Socratic Paradox exists for a reason, as the more one knows, the more they realize the vast amount that we don't.
"Do you then believe that the existent needs to have laws?"
Does it interact in predictable and describable ways? As that is what the laws you are describing are, descriptions of interaction in a preexisting reality.
"Are you then agreeing with the Stephen Hawking theory of a self creating universe?"
I don't know and he doesn't either, he admits as much, he even states that it actually isn't a theory but an untestable hypothesis based on the best current understanding in physics. He pointed out that time acts differently in high-energy states, things get wonky, so he hypothesized that in the ultimate high-energy state(the singularity or beginning or the inflationary event), time could be so screwy that effect could proceed cause. Is it interesting? Yes. Is it mathematically sound? Somewhat, if we make a number of assumptions, which seem reasonable but ultimately unjustified. It is simply one, of many, hypotheses out there that can be neither tested nor supported. Meaning that I don't really know and they don't either.
"BTW I agree with you, many people out there try to describe nothing, however, the moment you define nothing it becomes something."
Precisely, the mere act of assessing a property to it (including the absence of something), voids the concept as nothing cannot have any properties ontologically. It cannot even have the property of not having properties, as that would be a property, it is all very confusing but we do things this way for a reason. It is better to be "wrong" because we failed to make baseless and unjustified assumptions, then to be "right" because we assume we are, and never really be able know for sure.
So your antagonism toward justified existence is because of the evidence? So if the evidence showed why we exist you would change your mind?
"Knowledge isn't belief, it is demonstrable and evidential, if neither can be provided then it isn't knowledge." Do you know that to be true? Aren't you relying on your existence to be able to make such a claim? And as you said, you don't know why you exist, therefore the claim that knowledge isn't a belief is in itself a belief?
Glad we agree on nothing. No pun intended, though it is kinda funny.
"nothing cannot have any properties ontologically" Isn't that a property though?
sorry meant agnosticism. My bad.
"So your antagonism toward justified existence is because of the evidence?"
Antagonism? Have you missed the exchange? It is not existence that need be justified, but claims about its origins, and until such a time as we have positive evidence concerning the origin of the universe(which we don't), we can make no justifiable claims concerning that origin. Until such a time that we have conclusive evidence concerning to origins of existence, which we don't, all we have a spurious conjecture unfit to be called knowledge by even the loosest of definitions.
"So if the evidence showed why we exist you would change your mind?"
Here you go, changing scope again. This isn't about the human races origins, it is about the origin of all existence itself, to whit no one understands well enough to make strong claims. You are stuck on "why", a question absolutely loaded with metaphysical baggage of purpose and intent that you cannot even begin to justify, on a question that includes us but isn't about us. If we had real, tangible, solid evidence concerning the origin of existence then we could make some claims concerning it. As of yet, we don't, making any wild claims about it rather premature and utterly unjustifiable based solely on reason.
"Do you know that to be true?"
Yes, it is true by definition, knowledge is justifiable. If you cannot justify a claim of knowledge, it fails, utterly.
"Aren't you relying on your existence to be able to make such a claim?"
Duh. Existence is a requirement to make any and all claims, the nonexistent cannot make claims. Everything is contingent upon existence, from the logical laws to your god, and cannot exist without it.
"And as you said, you don't know why you exist, therefore the claim that knowledge isn't a belief is in itself a belief?
Here you go with the loaded question yet again, however, I do actually know why I(as and individual) exist. You see, sometimes, when a mommy and daddy love each other.... Yeah, it is actually pretty simple to justify our individual existence, that is why good apologists have to point to the unknown or unknowable to insert their unjustifiable god.
"Glad we agree on nothing. No pun intended, though it is kinda funny."
Mmhmm, if nothing else.
""nothing cannot have any properties ontologically" Isn't that a property though?"
That is rather the point, linguistically it is impossible to discuss nothing, as we have to define something that literally can't have a definition, by definition. It is a paradox.