Sharpshooter Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 So coral is not complex? The natural processes of creating coral is not complex? The entire argument puts complexity at a degree that requires a designer. Natural Formation =\= No designer Understand? In order for a naturally occurring coral to refute the existence of a supreme creator, you had to make the jump that corral is NOT a complex organism that does NOT require complex natural processes. And for your bolded point - it is a logical assertion that God is eternal and needs no designer himself. It is God and transcends what we finite beings understand as time and complex. God is a self sustaining and transcendent being of time and space. Anything less would undermine the character of God. Is this too hard for you to understand? Or do you need evidence for it? The biggest circular argument from the atheist IMO. Empirical evidence of the explainable God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The non-belief argument - "The premise of the argument is that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAA!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It would seem to me that something has to be eternal or we for sure end up in an infinite regress of causes for causes and so on. So either God is eternal, or matter is, or some kind of physical energy is or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Oh Oh Oh! Teacher! Yes Horseshack? The statements at the end of Genesis 1 seem to be more theological than chronological. They are telling who man is -made in God's image and that the male alone is not a complete representation of this image etc. the Genesis 2 statements have more of a chronological meaning to them and they indicate that man was made, then the land animals and then the first woman. See? Depends how you look at it. And so on and so on Simple question: Why do you you only look from the skeptic's side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 But then I remember how entertaining it is watching people trying to fit round pegs into square holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Ugh, i'll try this again. The teleological argument has been debunked using science(physics, chemistry and biology) and Formal Logic. Try to pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Everyone has their opinion but don't think for a second that your opinion is more valid than theirs. Some people believe in god and think not everything can be seen like spirits and whatnot. And some people need scientific proof for everything and need to actually physically see something in order for them to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 No, what you did was bolded a bunch of posts that I have written but did not comment on them. That isn't work.. thats HIGHLIGHT, CTRL + B and POST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I agree. I didn't work, nor did I claim to. You did all the work, mostly against yourself. I just pointed it out as per your request . You are like a politician: if I were to ask a question about the environment I would end up with a bunch of BS arguments about foreign affairs. You slither away from the issue like a sewer eel. I have respect for Christians and other theists who honestly argue their position without malice. I have zero respect for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Hey, I can use Webster's too: Atheism: 2b: the doctrine that there is no deity Doctrine: 2b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma Dogma: 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church Church: 2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body. 3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : denomination <the Presbyterian church> c : congregation Denomination: 4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices The reason why there is a First Church of Atheism is because atheism qualifies as religion. According to the infinite wisdom of Webster's dictionary, atheism is a belief system, and therfore can be preached about in a church. Remember, it's not me who arrived at this conclusion. It's a group of atheist activists who have decided that attempting to gain official religion status for atheism is a good idea. Other atheists may or may not accept it, but that changes nothing. The belief system, and the religion, is still there. Just like how the belief in God is still there regardless of your acceptance of it. Welcome to the new age of religion (and hypocrisy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Hey, I can use Webster's too: Atheism: 2b: the doctrine that there is no deity Doctrine: 2b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma Dogma: 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church Church: 2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body. 3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : denomination <the Presbyterian church> c : congregation Denomination: 4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices The reason why there is a First Church of Atheism is because atheism qualifies as religion. According to the infinite wisdom of Webster's dictionary, atheism is a belief system, and therfore can be preached about in a church. Remember, it's not me who arrived at this conclusion. It's a group of atheist activists who have decided that attempting to gain official religion status for atheism is a good idea. Other atheists may or may not accept it, but that changes nothing. The belief system, and the religion, is still there. Just like how the belief in God is still there regardless of your acceptance of it. Welcome to the new age of religion (and hypocrisy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Mmm, no. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it. You can be an Atheist and religious, but Atheism is in-itself not a religion. For example, you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist. You can be an Atheist and not believe in evolution. There is no set belief or Atheist doctrine. It's merely the lack of belief (or belief in, however you want to swing it) of a single concept. Unless of course you think a solitary idea constitutes a religion. In that case I belong to the church of "Don't punch people in the face." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 There is no relation between punching people in the face, baseball, hockey, etc. and God. That's why those arguments don't work. Whereas the belief in there being no God directly ties into religion. The belief in there not being a God qualifies as religious belief. Hence, there being a need for a First Church of Atheism. They feel persecuted by those who believe in God. It's no different that the relationship between other denominations. They all believe in a doctrine. Atheism's just happens to reject God. 'Methodism is a rejection of Calvinism.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Mmm, no. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it. You can be an Atheist and religious, but Atheism is in-itself not a religion. For example, you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist. You can be an Atheist and not believe in evolution. There is no set belief or Atheist doctrine. It's merely the lack of belief (or belief in, however you want to swing it) of a single concept. Unless of course you think a solitary idea constitutes a religion. In that case I belong to the church of "Don't punch people in the face." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I would agree that atheism probably shouldn't be a religion, but with atheist activism on the rise, the amount of aggression and jealousy towards theist denominations has led to some of them adopting a 'can't beat em? Join em' attitude. This will tick off non-practicing atheists of course, but that doesn't change much. You can't preach on and on about there being no God and not expect that movement to eventually become a religion. Yeah, it's hypocrisy, but 2,000 years ago Jesus being a Jew was hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I would agree that atheism probably shouldn't be a religion, but with atheist activism on the rise, the amount of aggression and jealousy towards theist denominations has led to some of them adopting a 'can't beat em? Join em' attitude. This will tick off non-practicing atheists of course, but that doesn't change much. You can't preach on and on about there being no God and not expect that movement to eventually become a religion. Yeah, it's hypocrisy, but 2,000 years ago Jesus being a Jew was hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 There is no relation between punching people in the face, baseball, hockey, etc. and God. That's why those arguments don't work. Whereas the belief in there being no God directly ties into religion. The belief in there not being a God qualifies as religious belief. Hence, there being a need for a First Church of Atheism. They feel persecuted by those who believe in God. It's no different that the relationship between other denominations. They all believe in a doctrine. Atheism's just happens to reject God. 'Methodism is a rejection of Calvinism.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 There is no relation between punching people in the face, baseball, hockey, etc. and God. That's why those arguments don't work. Whereas the belief in there being no God directly ties into religion. The belief in there not being a God qualifies as religious belief. Hence, there being a need for a First Church of Atheism. They feel persecuted by those who believe in God. It's no different that the relationship between other denominations. They all believe in a doctrine. Atheism's just happens to reject God. 'Methodism is a rejection of Calvinism.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 If somebody wants to use Websters as a definition bible, then he might've wanted to look at the definition of atheism first. The doctrine of there not being a deity can easily be tranformed into religion if a church so chooses. Forget First Church of Atheism, What about Buddhism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I've already addressed that church. It is a website now, but they're raising money with intent on making a place for their congregation to get together to share their beliefs. Ie. A real church, complete with a religious symbol, religious ceremony and eventually official religion status. They're also signed up 3,500 atheist ministers to 'spread the word' around the globe. There clearly are atheists who practice atheism as a religion, even if they don't want to call it one. No. If you'd actually looked into that site, instead of reading the title and making assumptions, you'd see that they merely provide the opportunity for secular people to perform marriage or funeral ceremonies. That's it. It's not an actual church, it's just a name. The only 'need' being fulfilled is people not wanting to have god slathered over their marriage ceremony or the funeral of a loved one. And there is no direct correlation to Buddhism and God either. So go try telling a Buddhist that their religion isn't real. And again, a single common belief does not constitute a doctrine or religion. If that were true, then I propose that (hopefully) all of us belong to the 'Santa Claus is not real' religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.