Atheist vs Theist

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by DennisTate, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just my own 2 cents worth on what you were quoting from the pretend atheist's manifesto";

    Christianity in the USA in the 1930's was full blown Jim Crow and the KKK lynching of innocent Americans who were unfortunate enough not to have been born white.

    And then there was Germany in the 1930's which was very much a "Christian" nation persecuting the Jews. Nothing whatsoever to with "secular humanism" at all.

    The other fallacy in that excerpt is the condemnation of 1.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of the extremist fringe. Must all Christianity be vilified because of Dylan Roof, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, et al?
     
    Grumblenuts likes this.
  2. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, men? Know your place. Bow down to that almighty dollar!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    One Dogma to rule them all, One Dogma to find them
    One Dogma to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
     
    Sallyally and DennisTate like this.
  3. Equality

    Equality Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That is a very interesting notion, but you should never be convinced unless there is absolute proofs. However , in saying that, I can ''see'' why you have these thoughts and are looking at that line of enquiry. All information apparently being retained by energy and the realism that even our own thoughts do not exist without energy. We simply exist as energy in a bodily vessel, everything we know and think , all of our memories retained in this energy, ourselves seemingly made of this energy.
    Are we merely celestial beings in a bodily vessel? Are we a part of an intelligent design and no more than data in a system? Are we experiencing a virtual experience and our real bodies await our ''souls'' return?

    Questions we may never know an answer to.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  4. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What it all boils down to is pride. There is ample evidence for the existence of God. Atheists reject God because He convicts them of their sin. He shows them just how depraved they are in the eyes of God. They cannot accept the fact that they are not worthy to stand in the presence of God. This is why they hate Him as well as Christians. Also, the Bible records several events where unbelievers witnessed Jesus' miracles and still refused to accept Him as their Lord and Savior. All because of pride. So it doesn't matter what evidence is presented. Most people will never accept the truth.
     
  5. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you claim evidence, obviously provide none, then declare it doesn't matter anyway. How convenient for you! And unconvincing! Least you have balls.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    • Insulting or personally attacking other posters (Rule 2)
    The evidence is out there. You'd have to blind not to see it. People like you claim there is no evidence. There is. You simply reject it. <Rule 2>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2017
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given the nature of eternity, the possibility of infinite alternate realities, the unlimited potential of technological acheivement given enough time and the nature of sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic, I think it takes more faith to believe that we evolved independent of any outside intelligence or intent than it does to presume that we were created or at least initiated as part of an as yet unknown plan by something at least analagous to 'God.'
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The scientific evidence for the ORIGIN of LIFE is still pending.

    The scientific evidence for EVOLUTION has been verified by multiple disciplines.

    The "evidence" for some imaginary "outside intelligence" and/or "god" is non existent.

    No faith whatsoever is required to understand the scientific evidence.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never said it takes faith to believe we evolved. I said it takes faith to believe we evolved from nothing, by chance, without any creative, intentional input.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The origin of life is NOT the same thing as evolution.

    They are two entirely different concepts.

    The origin of life is being studied by scientists and they have come a long way in understanding how it may have occurred. Currently there are 7 theories still underway but perhaps one of the most interesting recent findings was from this research.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

    The object lesson being that elements react and recombine under different conditions because that is one of their properties. (DNA is just a string of molecules that can react and recombine under certain conditions. https://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/sites/default/files/html/educ/dnapr/mbglossary/mbgloss.html)

    The chemistry, molecular biology and the basic building blocks are understood so the next step is to determine the conditions and test to find the right ones that result in the formation of life.

    I am confident that given sufficient research this is something that will be discovered in the course of time.

    The more interesting question is once that discovery is made how will theists react?
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hopefully not the same way that atheists react when theists claim that technological advancement and research into the human mind, other dimensions, or the nature of energy will likely provide future insight into more concrete dynamics of creation, God and/or the human spirit.
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That has already happened. FTR I am a "spiritual" atheist because what is termed "spiritual" by theists is merely a state of mind.

    Scientific studies conducted with devout atheists measured brain waves when the participants reached what they deemed to be "spiritual states". This state of mind has also been found to occur in other non human mammals.

    In summary this state of mind exists but it is not evidence of any deity.

    The nature of matter/energy results in a logical paradox for an imaginary omnipotent "creator" as defined by theists. Since matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed per the laws of physics the paradox arises when the question is asked if there is anything that the theist's imaginary omnipotent "creator" can create that they cannot destroy? If the answer is no, the theist's imaginary omnipotent "creator" can destroy anything that they create then they cannot be omnipotent because it means that the theist's imaginary omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that is indestructible. The reverse logical paradox also applies.

    The problem that theists face is that they "created" their deity based upon their Stone Age level of superstition. What was unknown was always deemed to be "goddidit" and since their ignorance far surpassed their knowledge they bestowed their deity with all kinds of knowledge and powers that have subsequently been determined to be nothing more than natural phenomena of the universe that we inhabit.

    Science today acknowledges that there is a still a great deal to learn but does not pretend that what is unknown is the "work" of some imaginary omnipotent "creator". It was a mere quarter of a century ago that science found a way to detect planets around other stars. Now we know of thousands of other planets out there of which about 2 dozen are likely to be similar enough to earth to have life on them.

    When, rather than if, life is detected on other planets what will theists do when their holy texts are proven wrong yet again about humanity being in no way "special" to their imaginary omnipotent "creator"?

    Scientific knowledge will continue to advance while theism will stagnate.

    That is what happens when the environment changes and things that fail to adapt go extinct. This process of evolution applies to concepts just as it does to species.

    There are countless deities whose religions have gone extinct over the millennia and yet scientific knowledge from when Zeus "ruled the heavens" is still around today. The theorems of Pythagoras are still taught in schools around the world and his math has allowed us to learn about the universe.

    Everyone is born an atheist.

    Math is the language of the universe.

    No amount of theism is ever going to alter those realities.
     
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its a matter of perception. Animals and machines can both percieve elements of reality currently unknown to us. Our perception is continually expanding as we study and advance. The common claim that 'there is no God or spirit or soul' is intellectually disingenous and innaccurate. A genuine claim would be 'we cannot perceive any God, spirit or soul' but even that is not necessarily true as many claim they can. Its merely provably true that we cannot quantify God, spirit or soul...yet. Its possible this will always be true. Its also possible that it will not.
     
  14. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's possible that water will always be wet. It's also possible that it will not. It will always be possible to say nothing and convince some that you are actually saying something.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh i guess you're right. We now know everything we will ever know, and we will never be able to perceive or detect that which we cannot already. We should just stop researching and developing altogether.
    :frown:
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
  16. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And yet again. It will always be possible to say nothing and convince some that you are actually saying something.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since what an individual claims cannot be measured such allegations are anecdotal and thus have no substance of any merit.

    We will encounter aliens before any evidence of a deity or creator comes to light.
     
  18. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    17,782
    Likes Received:
    12,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That were forced to embrace the reductio ad absurdum fallacy exposes the weakness of your position.
     
  19. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    True, but it obviously just being another straw man supplied sufficient cause to dismiss, thereby avoiding the risk of lending false credence to already repeated vacuous nonsense. However, I do have "issues" (lol) let's say, with the following:
    No argument with your conclusions, which we vastly agree upon, but the premises you employ to get there... "Science today", when it comes to the discipline of physics at least, understands and therefore accurately explains less today than it did 100 years ago. The so-called "laws of physics" taught in every mainstream school and text of supposed higher learning today are disgraceful nonsense. They describe physical nature just realistically enough to put nearly everyone to sleep. But in truth matter is not analogous, equal to, or even necessarily proportional to energy and we all know it, at least subconsciously. Einstein was obviously brilliant but highly confused and wrong here nonetheless. Energy is actually an action, a verb. Mass is literally what we consider matter, a noun. Look, we're energizing this mass over here by heating it with this Bunsen burner! And we're lifting this mass here to set it on this table! Both acts (heating and lifting) require "work", exerting effort - obviously another verb in this context. Energy is work. In no logical sense is it a "capacity to do work" or noun or any kind of "Potential Energy". The language required to actually understand our physical reality has disappeared from our vocabulary. Replaced with idiotic babble.
     
  20. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." - Nikola Tesla, 1938

    The above makes evident that even Tesla was forced by the dictionary to use the word "energy" as a noun back in 1938, even though he obviously knew better, and had repeatedly chided Einstein for his nonsensical "curved fabric of space" model, just for example. Nevertheless, he's saying energy is actually an action in there, not a material thing. The environment acts upon (or reacts with) matter. Whenever it does the act is an end in itself. A rock gets warmed by the Sun. Each infinitesimal increase in temperature is energy (modern noun sense) instantly creating and destroying itself simultaneously. There is no such thing as conserving energy and we're always destroying every bit we have any "potential" to use. The environment is what becomes "energized" or locally potentialized allowing for "work" or energy, in other words.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2017

Share This Page