I'm an athiest, is there a place for me in the Liberty/Ron Paul movement?

[heavenlyboy34]

Well I'm sure you're not the only person on this board who will make an argument based on the assumption that something is true, then when someone makes a counter argument based on those same assumptions, fall back on the "but that can't be true" position. A lot of people here are not able to debate well.

I've noticed that too.

 

[swatmc]

Well I'm sure you're not the only person on this board who will make an argument based on the assumption that something is true, then when someone makes a counter argument based on those same assumptions, fall back on the "but that can't be true" position. A lot of people here are not able to debate well.

The difference is that some things can be proven to be true or false using science.

Other people prove something true or false by faith.

I love how people think they are putting me in my place by saying that 1 out of the 10,000 gods that man has created is the actual one.

 

[jmdrake]

The difference is that some things can be proven to be true or false using science.

Other people prove something true or false by faith.

I love how people think they are putting me in my place by saying that 1 out of the 10,000 gods that man has created is the actual one.

You're missing the point. You attempted to make an argument based on the premise that God exists. (The "God should give up His power in the afterlife argument). I refuted your argument operating from that same premise. Then after your argument was refuted, you jumped back to "Well your argument can't be right because God doesn't exist". Don't you see how silly that is? No, I guess you don't. Let's put it another way. Say if we were making some argument about which was superhero was more powerful, Superman or Hulk. We of course would be arguing based on first suspending our mutual disbelief that neither character existed. Now if you made some convincing argument as to why Hulk is stronger (i.e. Hulk gets stronger as he gets madder, and he doesn't have some silly allergy to fragments of his home planet), it would be silly of me to jump back and say "Well your wrong because neither of them exists so neither is stronger."

Short answer, if you want to make a logical argument about what God should do assuming God does exist, then you can't jump back and say "Well He doesn't exist so I win anyway" once your argument has been knocked down. Anyway, I'm done for today. Have fun!

 

[swatmc]

You're missing the point. You attempted to make an argument based on the premise that God exists. (The "God should give up His power in the afterlife argument). I refuted your argument operating from that same premise. Then after your argument was refuted, you jumped back to "Well your argument can't be right because God doesn't exist". Don't you see how silly that is? No, I guess you don't. Let's put it another way. Say if we were making some argument about which was superhero was more powerful, Superman or Hulk. We of course would be arguing based on first suspending our mutual disbelief that neither character existed. Now if you made some convincing argument as to why Hulk is stronger (i.e. Hulk gets stronger as he gets madder, and he doesn't have some silly allergy to fragments of his home planet), it would be silly of me to jump back and say "Well your wrong because neither of them exists so neither is stronger."

Short answer, if you want to make a logical argument about what God should do assuming God does exist, then you can't jump back and say "Well He doesn't exist so I win anyway" once your argument has been knocked down. Anyway, I'm done for today. Have fun!

Either argument is invalid.

If god does exist, morally he shouldn't exist.

But there is no evidence that god DOES exist.

So why are you wasting your life with nonsense?

 

[bunklocoempire]

Nonsense?!? LOL! Where'd you hear that from?

Some view this as just a literary parlor trick, you know, writing down what someone will say –before they say it.

Some view it as “too good to be true” -a stumbling block, foolishness –can’t get something for nothing in this world.

Some, look at the evidence inside themselves and the men around them -and embrace the “foolishness of God”.

Some look through telescopes... (Telescopes ARE cool!)

In my experience, ones explanation of love tends to have alot to do with their view of the "foolishness of God".


1 Corinthians 1:20–25
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

1 Corinthians 2:11–16
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16 ”For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:18–20
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness;” 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”


Bunkloco

 

[swatmc]

I know that this argument is never going to be settled.

So I am just going to leave you all with a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"Our problem is this, our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb/finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die. And we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid, and so fabricated, that a child can, and all children do, as you can tell by their questions, actually see through them. And I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt. And I claim that right."

So I'm throwing in with Hitch on this one. Not because I believe he is an unquestionable authority like Jesus or Kim Jong Il... I just believe he is CLOSER to the truth than any clergy, priest, imam, rabbi, witch doctor, or any other person who claims to KNOW the truth.

So long.

 

[swatmc]

Nonsense?!? LOL! Where'd you hear that from?

Some view this as just a literary parlor trick, you know, writing down what someone will say –before they say it.

Some view it as “too good to be true” -a stumbling block, foolishness –can’t get something for nothing in this world.

Some, look at the evidence inside themselves and the men around them -and embrace the “foolishness of God”.

Some look through telescopes... (Telescopes ARE cool!)

In my experience, ones explanation of love tends to have alot to do with their view of the "foolishness of God".


1 Corinthians 1:20–25
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

1 Corinthians 2:11–16
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16 ”For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:18–20
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness;” 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”


Bunkloco

My above post was not a response to this post.

For the record.

 

[MelissaWV]

How is depleted uranium not a problem? It's clearly still radioactive. Toshiba is building an energy producing nuclear reactor based on depleted uranium.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/toshiba-and-bill-gates-backed-terrapower-discussing-small-scale/

As for shells being used in populated U.S. soil, I sincerely doubt it's at any level NEAR what's being used in Iraq. Besides, live fire training bases are cut off from the general population for good reason. Unless you've got some study from an inner city where the gang bangers and/or SWAT teams use DU rounds I don't think you have an accurate comparison.

I was being sarcastic about the "not a problem" thing. It's been said to people in Puerto Rico repeatedly. "Oh you just HAPPEN to have increased cancer rates on Vieques..."

Ah. I see. You're talking about people knocking on the door three times as opposed to coming back to your door three times.

They knocked three times because they came around thrice in one night. Communication is elusive today; I'm not doing a good job.

Well if you look at it from the "zealots" point of view, it's like the story I gave earlier in this thread about people on a sinking ship.

Indeed. From my perspective, I already know the ship is sinking, and am in a lifeboat. I don't particularly think that I want to get out and walk to the lifeboats on the other side of the ship. Shoo, and worry about getting into the lifeboat yourself; I'm already accounting for myself.

Again, it's just me. I'm the sort that answers the Jehovah's Witness at the door wearing something they will have to take years wiping from their memory, when I do answer at all

 

[Johnnybags]

So you believe in

1. freedom
2. limited gubmint
3. sound money
4. right to bear arms


Your in no matter what religion. We are all gonna be Amish or Christian Scientist soon anyway to avoid the healthcare penalty.

 

[Theocrat]

Your Lack of Evidence

I don't reject god's existence because he is unseen. I reject god's existence because thankfully there is no evidence that supports this claim. There is also no evidence that Kim Jong Il controls the weather, that Zeus controls lightning, or that the prophet mohammed spoke to god.

I'm thankful that none of the above is true.

There is also no evidence for the non-existence of God. So how can your belief be true that there is no God?

 

[Theocrat]

Be Intellectually Honest

God is a man-made construct, designed as a crutch and a tool for the powerful. It i a wholly human thing that we "create for ourselves". A quick look into the history of any religion will confirm this. The idea of liberty is also man-made. It is an idea, a social concept. As is democracy, fascism, and the like.

Liberty has nothing to do with god, regardless of what our founding fathers said. Why? Because something can't be based on something that doesn't exist. Simple as that.

Obviously, we are not talking about the same God if your assumption is "God is a man-made construct." I'm not surprised, then, if you believe "God" is a delusion because gods made by men are, by definition, a delusion. Christians do not believe that God is a "man-made concept," however. The Bible teaches that God is eternal and self-existing.

So, if you're going to debate the existence of God but use your own definition and assumptions about God to tear down the Christian God, then you've committed a logical fallacy of arguing against a strawman. No Christian accepts your notion about God, reillym, so we're not even on the same page in this discussion.

 

[swatmc]

There is also no evidence for the non-existence of God. So how can your belief be true that there is no God?

Do you believe in the god Poseidon? Why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posiden

 

[Theocrat]

Try Again

Do you believe in the god Poseidon? Why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posiden

That does not answer my question.

 

[WaltM]

That does not answer my question.

yes it does, as in you don't just believe something somebody else made up.

 

[Theocrat]

Not Exactly

yes it does, as in you don't just believe something somebody else made up.

I asked for evidence for the non-existence of God. Since swatmc only accepts things as true based on its evidence, I want to see the evidence which makes his assertion that there is no God true.

If swatmc wants to use Poseidon as evidence for the non-existence of God, he's on the horns of a dilemma. That is because he already believes that Poseidon doesn't exist, so he can't use that as an example to prove there is no God. Otherwise, he has to assume Poseidon exists in order to prove that he doesn't exist. But if he assumes Poseidon exists, then,

1. Why seek to disprove his existence if you've already granted that he exists (even for the sake of argument)?
2. He's no longer arguing against the Christian truth about the existence of God because Jehovah is in no fashion similar to the conception of Poseidon. Thus, swatmc is arguing a strawman while making a hasty generalization, two common logical fallacies from "atheists."

 

[swatmc]

I asked for evidence for the non-existence of God. Since swatmc only accepts things as true based on its evidence, I want to see the evidence which makes his assertion that there is no God true.

If swatmc wants to use Poseidon as evidence for the non-existence of God, he's on the horns of a dilemma. That is because he already believes that Poseidon doesn't exist, so he can't use that as an example to prove there is no God. Otherwise, he has to assume Poseidon exists in order to prove that he doesn't exist. But if he assumes Poseidon exists, then,

1. Why seek to disprove his existence if you've already granted that he exists (even for the sake of argument)?
2. He's no longer arguing against the Christian truth about the existence of God because Jehovah is in no fashion similar to the conception of Poseidon. Thus, swatmc is arguing a strawman while making a hasty generalization, two common logical fallacies from "atheists."

I don't see any difference between the claim of people in the past that Poseidon exists and the current claim of Christians (or anyone else) that their interpretation of god exists.

I think it's unfair to dismiss Poseidon because a lot of people in the past used to PRAY to this god while traveling the ocean. Why? Because the sea is one of the scariest things ever. It's infinite, there are large creatures that can eat you, you can drown, you can get lost, etc, etc.

So I UNDERSTAND why someone in the past would pray to a god that they believe is in control of ocean.

But there is not a shred of evidence that says that Poseidon exists. But I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

So therefore the claim of the Christian god is just as valid as the claim of Poseidon. (or any of the 10,000 gods that man has invented over the years)

Bertrand Russel had a similar argument involving a teapot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Now let's take the Christian god, Poseidon, and this teapot that is revolving around the sun. Each one CAN be true but cannot be proven true or false by any kind of evidence.

Religious people work in reverse, they come to a conclusion before they do their research.

Do you really think if we never heard of the bible and all copies were destroyed before they reached circulation... we would really come to the conclusion that a jewish carpenter living in the bronze age is the illegitimate child of the creature of the universe?

That's why I believe that ALL religions need to be highlighted and dragged over to the recycling bin.

 

[eproxy100]

Wow. This is a long thread. I'm not gonna read through it.

Hey Swatmc. There's actually a lot of agnostics/atheists here, though we are outnumbered by christians. And I understand you concern. Honestly, these christian fundamentalists scare the hell outta me. I haven't had any muslim fundamentalist try to convert me in any way. But I've had christian fundamentalists curse at me and displayed aggressive behavior just because I didn't wanna accept their god. A lot of christians are neocon zionists btw. Of course though not all christians are fanatics.

We just need to keep guard against these religious zealots.

 

[reillym]

Obviously, we are not talking about the same God if your assumption is "God is a man-made construct." I'm not surprised, then, if you believe "God" is a delusion because gods made by men are, by definition, a delusion. Christians do not believe that God is a "man-made concept," however. The Bible teaches that God is eternal and self-existing.

So, if you're going to debate the existence of God but use your own definition and assumptions about God to tear down the Christian God, then you've committed a logical fallacy of arguing against a strawman. No Christian accepts your notion about God, reillym, so we're not even on the same page in this discussion.

I went that route because you a trying to claim liberty for only the religious people, and that is insulting and wrong. It is a very human thing, and anyone can understand it. To even attempt to tie it to religion is arrogant, self-serving, and simple not based in reality.

 

[reillym]

Wow. This is a long thread. I'm not gonna read through it.

Hey Swatmc. There's actually a lot of agnostics/atheists here, though we are outnumbered by christians. And I understand you concern. Honestly, these christian fundamentalists scare the hell outta me. I haven't had any muslim fundamentalist try to convert me in any way. But I've had christian fundamentalists curse at me and displayed aggressive behavior just because I didn't wanna accept their god. A lot of christians are neocon zionists btw. Of course though not all christians are fanatics.

We just need to keep guard against these religious zealots.

Yes, they are detrimental to the movement, arrogant, and mostly fools.

 

[idirtify]

I asked for evidence for the non-existence of God. Since swatmc only accepts things as true based on its evidence, I want to see the evidence which makes his assertion that there is no God true.

Regarding god-existence: instead of implying one or the other belief is “false”, let’s look at which belief is LESS false. One belief is that god exists; the other is that god does not exist. Now given that both beliefs technically have the same amount of evidence, ZERO, which one is less false? Looking at it this way, in relative terms, disbelieving in something that has no evidence would appear to be the less false belief.

Or make a similar relative comparison using the concept of “logic”: Disbelieving in something that has no evidence certainly seems less illogical than believing in it.

In this light, the believer who puts the burden of proof on the disbeliever (implying that his disbelief [type of belief] is no more true or logical) is not being reasonable.