Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 01 Sep 2009, 21:24 ---don't be quite so quick to dismiss the people who laid the foundations of this civilization.
--- End quote ---
Newton laid the foundations of much of modern mathematics and science; but when he made the remark about standing on the shoulders of giants, he was talking about astrology. If the great people of the past had known everything, or got it all right, there would be no scope for development.
--- Quote ---Please be willing to at least entertain the notion that a theistic worldview is not inherently retarded.
--- End quote ---
In a lifetime of being surrounded by theistic argument (my father was a theologian) I never found any that made a theist viewpoint acceptable to me. I would be the retarded one if I accepted ideas whose arguments fail for me. And if I admit that it is still possible for me to be wrong, that does not make me agnostic as you claim above - it merely means that I accept that I am not omniscient.
Pypoli:
--- Quote from: cerement on 02 Sep 2009, 01:53 ---
--- Quote from: Pypoli on 02 Sep 2009, 01:18 ---And last but not least, look around us. Our world's a mess. Natural catastrophies, wars, global warming, pollution... If there is indeed a god watching over us, he's either doing a very poor job, or he doesn't give a fuck. And in either case, why the fuck should i care about him/her/it?
--- End quote ---
Congratulations, your answer is Discordianism! The worship of the Greek goddess Eris, the goddess of chaos, confusion, and things that just don't go right. Even from your examples, it's clear you've already seen her influence in your life ...
--- End quote ---
Right. And again, i should worship her why?
Delirium:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 02 Sep 2009, 02:43 ---(my father was a theologian)
--- End quote ---
What drives a person to become a theologian? I mean seriously.
pwhodges:
I have no idea. I never talked about it with my father, as I was the odd one out in the family (being a scientist and atheist, though I might have said agnostic while he was alive). I may still have some documents in which he wrote about his life, but I don't recall that there were any actual explanations there. Like me, he was brought up in an atmosphere of faith (Methodist in his childhood), and like many he lost his faith for a brief while during his time at university. My mother once told me that his faith was shaken again by the process of dying; but later in life she didn't remember this.
[edit] Well, well - a quote!
danman:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 01 Sep 2009, 23:36 ---
Since ancient Greece, the educated classes have been aware of the spherical earth. Geocentrism and heliocentrism belong to the same class of ideas as evolution (i.e., no bearing on the question of God's existence) as does the flat earth and- well- everything else you've listed. My point is this: Darwinian evolution is the only recent development that could change the landscape, so to speak, from what applied to the men I mentioned. And Darwinian evolution in no way precludes the existence of God.
--- End quote ---
Nobody disputes that. However, it disproves by example the argument from authority , which you used to support your case. A theory is not true because the scientist coming with it is smart, the scientist is smart because he comes up with sound theories.
Therefore, calling an authority to your help to prove the existance of god is meaningless , unless you state that person's arguments. If the arguments are correct they will persuade us
--- Quote ---Actually, that's not entirely true- quantum physics might be a real challenge to God's existence, as it might invalidate the Prime Cause. If you care to discuss a quantum physics-related argument against the existence of God, I am more than happy to admit that you have a valid and reasonable platform. I would disagree with it, but I would admit its rationality. I think the same could be said of theism. There is no science except quantum physics that in any way challenges the fundamental assumptions of a theistic worldview (that there must be a First Cause). It is as rational to assume, on philosophical grounds, that matter is capable of self-generation as it is to assume that there is a self-existent cause behind matter. One or the other must be true.
--- End quote ---
Argument from prime cause is frankly put nonsense. Why would matter need to have a prime cause, why a god does not have to have a prime cause, and why cannot the causal chain go on forever (such as the universe expanding, then contracting and so on , with a big bang at beginning of each cycle)???
Even Thomas Aquinas blatantly asserted that the chain cannot go on forever as then we would have no first cause - ie the argument is based on assuming it is true - ie a tautology.
--- Quote ---Besides which, my main point was that atheists can be self-sabotaging with their "unicorn-colored" or "flying spaghetti monster" ideas. Those are far more applicable to pagan religions- I think Thor is as inherently goofy as just about anything you could come up with, and Quetzlcoatl too. But Christians have thought that for two thousand years, and Jews for longer than that. The fact is that the belief in an omnipotent deity is more reasonable than the belief in any random god. Call monotheism untrue, call it unsubstantiated, but don't call it patently ridiculous. Bring that up to the Dionysian cults, or the worshipers of Wotan (the Nazis, for instance). Don't bring it up to the believers in Yahweh.
--- End quote ---
They are placeholders for unverifiable beings and how dare you assert the IPU is not omnipotent :D
I myself prefer to use a teapot floating around Saturn, Baba Jaga and Ded Moroz.
The belief in an omnipotent deity as christians do is self contradictory - why is there natural evil then (diseases, floods, droughts ) if god is both good and omnipotent? I am not even going to refer to the holy writ since there is even more contradictions. (such as judas dying twice or the blatant lack of god's justice with regards to Job)
Also omniscience blatantly contradicts with free will since an action can either be determined or not.
To myself , the dualist or polytheist religions seem much more logical, with their only faults being lack of evidence for support of them , and for some older ones , redundancy (ie science explained the stuff they did)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version