- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chromosome Study: All Men Can Be Traced to One Man
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:52 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:52 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I said SOME. SOME meaning not all.
fine sorry I misread that
quote:
However, Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hume did not hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of God and are almost certainly in Hell according to christian orthodoxy. Even Descartes would be in hell as a heretic according to some hardcore traditional catholics.
doesn't concern me if they don't believe in the Christian God. Philosophy doesn't say anything about theology we must understand them as separate, but still working together.
Aquinas based most of his philosophy on Aristotle I would say that Aristotle is the most Catholic Philosophy before the time of Christ. I fully believe that if Aristotle knew and existed after Christ he would believe in him and all of the philosophies that most Christian and Catholic philosophers hold. Many fundamental ideas of Christianity are found in Aristotle. But I'm not going to waste my time with trying to explain them it is outside of our discussion
Maybe I was wrong about Hume may have been a simple memory mistake. I find hume to be on the crazy side. How can one live as a skeptic how can one say that the world out there doesn't really doesn't have existence it is just a movie theater of our mind that we are watching.
I don't know the fate of Descartes soul but his skepticism started empiricism which most people in this movement were skeptic about the external reality. Kant thought experience only mattered and we can't know anything for certain. Kant also crazy.
quote:
Why? Give me a reason why.
When we see the universe we see a chain of finite causes, big bang leads to expansion eventually leads to universes and so on and so forth. A chain of secondary causes can't have it's own sufficient reason in itself, nothing finite can create it's own existence. Without a primary causality nothing even an infinite chain of events couldn't exist. Something must sustain it's existence.
quote:
A large portion of the world's leading astronomers and physicists believe either that it is eternal or it spontaneously came from "nothing". Lawerence Krauss even wrote a book about it.
doesn't remove the need for a creator especially if you understand primary and secondary causality.
quote:
No, because the larger global society said it wasn't. The world as a whole deemed it morally wrong and worked together to rectify it. Now if most people agreed that killing jews was ok then it would be, just like if most people agree with capital punishment it is morally acceptable.
Morally is defined by the society that works to enforce it. Nothing is ever "inherently" immoral because the universe doesn't care about morality. Morals aren't like the laws of physics.
again this doesn't remove the problem of having things that are very evil and are clearly wrong to be widely accepted in society and because of that it is morally legit.
If morality is based on truth and truth is unchangeable then morality is also unchangeable.
There is one truth to say there is more than one truth even different truths historically must be one. The reason truth appears to change is we know more about the truth not that the truth actually changes
0
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Why does there have to be a reason?
This is the simple reason
why does the universe exist rather than not exist?
quote:
A huge part of quantum mechanics involves events without a cause.
You have a wrong idea of causality that human and kant both got wrong. When people like Aristotle Aquinas Plato talk about causality they aren't talking about A causes B. Causality is more than this. Sure that is one form of causality but empiricist and most people after them reduced causality to only this.
There are four primary causes
1) Material cause, that which something comes out of. For example the material cause of a bronze statue is bronze
2) the Formal cause, what causes it's shape its organization, for example the form of a human is human while the material only fills that form.
3) The efficient cause, what caused something to go from not moving to moving or I think more accurately illustrated what causes something to go from non existence to existence. For example you father is your efficient cause. You can use deductive reasoning to prove that eventually you would need something that doesn't have an efficient cause in order for any efficient cause to exist.
4) the final cause, that end for what something is done.
sure some things pop out of no where and have no clear cause affect chain of events but this is only a problem for those who have a reductionist view of causality. Causality isn't challenged at all by something that has no "cause."
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:16 pm to catholictigerfan
I'm not much of a night owl I must close this discussion off for the night, I have loved this discussion it but will be very busy tomorrow I'll try and get back to it tomorrow afternoon if I'm up to it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:00 pm to catholictigerfan
If you get a chance, watch this video. It does a pretty good job of explaining the idea of an event without a cause and why our very nature prevents us from really understanding it:
LINK
LINK
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:39 pm to catholictigerfan
Catholic I like many of your observations, and think you to be a both religious and intelligent poster. I decided to join some of these discussions while reading the incredible bigotry and negativity leveled towards those who expressed a religious viewpoint. Although I attend no church, I certainly believe that the assumptions made by atheists are far too extreme and dangerous to go unchallenged.
It is apparent that most atheists harbor bitterness from some real or imagined slight that drives their attacks on religion, but the more I read their dogma, the more convinced I become that it is a singular threat to freedom of thought and speech. I believe it is the goal of some, or perhaps most, to rid the world of what they consider the scourge of religion by any means necessary.
It is apparent that most atheists harbor bitterness from some real or imagined slight that drives their attacks on religion, but the more I read their dogma, the more convinced I become that it is a singular threat to freedom of thought and speech. I believe it is the goal of some, or perhaps most, to rid the world of what they consider the scourge of religion by any means necessary.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:49 pm to mattloc
I dont have a desire to get rid of organized religion. Without religion we'd just find something else to fight about, it's in our nature. And I certainly don't hate anyone just because they are religious, not sure what I've said that would make you think that.
Your post just comes across as a persecution complex. These imagined slights against your rights and freedoms are absurd.
Your post just comes across as a persecution complex. These imagined slights against your rights and freedoms are absurd.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:52 pm to mattloc
quote:
It is apparent that most atheists harbor bitterness from some real or imagined slight that drives their attacks on religion, but the more I read their dogma, the more convinced I become that it is a singular threat to freedom of thought and speech. I believe it is the goal of some, or perhaps most, to rid the world of what they consider the scourge of religion by any means necessary.
Because through the ages religion has been all about freedom.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:57 pm to Roger Klarvin
Lol ..the original atheist Lenin advocated the abolition of religion and the eradication of all religious institutions and then proceeded to do it.
The chinese advocate atheism and forbid religious dialogue ....but I am absurd ...how disingenuous
The chinese advocate atheism and forbid religious dialogue ....but I am absurd ...how disingenuous
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 12:04 am
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:19 am to mattloc
Lenin and the Chinese wanted/want religion abolished for political reasons, they don't care about the theology or philosophy behind it.
You don't live in a communist society nor one which attempts to establish state religious beliefs and thus your personal fears about this are absurd.
Finally, if you believe Vladimir Lenin was the first atheist you are beyond help. We have written accounts of atheistic belief systems all the way back to the ancient Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Atheism was common in Greece and Rome. Many of our founding fathers were deists purely because they still believed God had to account for things science hadn't explained yet.
You don't live in a communist society nor one which attempts to establish state religious beliefs and thus your personal fears about this are absurd.
Finally, if you believe Vladimir Lenin was the first atheist you are beyond help. We have written accounts of atheistic belief systems all the way back to the ancient Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Atheism was common in Greece and Rome. Many of our founding fathers were deists purely because they still believed God had to account for things science hadn't explained yet.
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 12:23 am
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:32 am to Roger Klarvin
Your assurances will be of great comfort to those who live under an atheistic government....where they are not permitted to get on message boards and voice an opinion contrary to the official government position.
Google is your friend use it.....google atheism and the abolition of religion.... and see what your fellow atheists really believe
Google is your friend use it.....google atheism and the abolition of religion.... and see what your fellow atheists really believe
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:34 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:And your point is...
Finally, if you believe Vladimir Lenin was the first atheist you are beyond help. We have written accounts of atheistic belief systems all the way back to the ancient Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Atheism was common in Greece and Rome. Many of our founding fathers were deists purely because they still believed God had to account for things science hadn't explained yet.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:38 am to JazzyJeff
Im out for the night, but hold that thought and I will take the time to expose the sordid underbelly of your atheistic philosophy...
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:38 am to mattloc
quote:
I certainly believe that the assumptions made by atheists are far too extreme and dangerous to go unchallenged.
First, lumping all non-religious into the "atheist" category is quite an assuption. Second, what assumptions are we making? I don't care to re-read the thread, but I can't recall a single assumption regarding the science on this topic. Science is perfectly fine with saying "I don't know, yet". And it does, often.
Also, you have to see the irony in your statement, right? Taking for granted that a mystical being is responsible for the as-yet-insufficiently-explained is the assumption to trump all assumptions.
quote:More assumptions on your part. My goal, and it is no stretch to say the goal of most like me, is to share knowledge. That's it. I can tell you why many folks end up showing some anger, though -- when you do everything you can to help someone understand something, and how we know the things we know, but all you get in response is them closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and going "nope nope nope"... it's frustrating. And something else you need to understand is that when people try so hard that they get angry, it means they care. I would be worried if we were to give up on one another easily.
It is apparent that most atheists harbor bitterness from some real or imagined slight that drives their attacks on religion, but the more I read their dogma, the more convinced I become that it is a singular threat to freedom of thought and speech. I believe it is the goal of some, or perhaps most, to rid the world of what they consider the scourge of religion by any means necessary.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:55 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
And your point is...
He said Lenin was the first atheist when in reality atheism is as old as religion and older than Judaism or Christianity.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:59 am to mattloc
quote:
Your assurances will be of great comfort to those who live under an atheistic government....where they are not permitted to get on message boards and voice an opinion contrary to the official government position.
Your issue is with communism, not atheism. I wonder how you would feel if we lived in a Christian theocracy where anything other than Christian views were censored?
quote:
Google is your friend use it.....google atheism and the abolition of religion.... and see what your fellow atheists really believe
I think it's pretty clear that I, and just about everyone else in this thread, knows more about atheism AND Christianity than you.
Finally, I'm not an atheist as I've said multiple times in this thread. I don't claim there is no God, only that I have no reason to believe in one yet.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:00 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Humans have always believed in God/s, so to say that Atheism predates a belief in God/s is a stretch.
He said Lenin was the first atheist when in reality atheism is as old as religion and older than Judaism or Christianity.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:08 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
Humans have always believed in God/s, so to say that Atheism predates a belief in God/s is a stretch.
The default belief is no belief at all. Religion had to be conceived by man before he could believe in a god or gods.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:12 am to JazzyJeff
Long before Jesus Christ, Socrates was put to death for not believing in the Gods of the State. Disbelief is just as old as organized religion, apologies to Mr Lenin.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:17 am to JazzyJeff
quote:
Humans have always believed in God/s, so to say that Atheism predates a belief in God/s is a stretch.
We don't have much written history before ancient mesopatamia and the Egyptians, but homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years and have been at our current level of intellectual and behavioral maturity for at least 40-50,000 years. We've been practicing sedentary agriculture for over 12,000 years. It's very likely there were plenty of humans who didn't believe in Gods and certainly ones who didn't believed in organized belief systems.
However, all I said was atheism is AS old as Gods, not older. It is unquestionable older than Judeo-Christian beliefs however.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:59 am to Roger Klarvin
got time for one quick response
it was a good video but it still doesn't understand the causality I'm talking about.
I ask you the question again.
why does the universe exist instead of not exist?
you can't just answer it exists. That doesn't answer the question. There must be a reason for it's existence either inside itself or outside of it.
it was a good video but it still doesn't understand the causality I'm talking about.
I ask you the question again.
why does the universe exist instead of not exist?
you can't just answer it exists. That doesn't answer the question. There must be a reason for it's existence either inside itself or outside of it.
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News