This thread is simply an elaboration of what I posted here:

Grasping is an entirely different category than eating. In order to eat, a grasper must first stop grasping.

Only the ones who believe in their soul and believe in the promises written on their soul will eat.

"I, the true believer, do not even understand what is being said and what answer is being offered when someone says human beings need to deliberate, think, analyze, etc. in regard to what is moral ... instead of defaulting to an ancient book (that was for killing witches and homosexuals, no less). Because I believe that barbarian idiocy is the objective, universal, absolute truth of morality. I'm ensnared in this doctrine and have totally sacrificed my agency to it. If he kills every child and fetus on earth, I applaud it as holy. Morality, absolute morality, resides in this ancient god, one of many, created by man. And for the life of me I just don't, or I refuse, to see what is wrong with that kind of notion of absolute morality."

Right on cue, as I predicted:

Great answer .
Believing in books dated thousands of years , based on previous books that were themselves written thousands of years before it , is just denying the existence of evolution of humans and the universe itself , which both involve over time .
As evolution goes on , gods disappears .
Not many left , were getting there .

Just thinking how far behind societies were at that period , it just make no sense to adhere to the same principle .
Just 500 years ago people believed the earth was flat , some still do believes it today but doesn’t make it so …

And I should believe stuff over 2000 years ago without a shred of evidences while others claims the same , with other books (kuran, Torah ,etc ) ?
my goodness …

If at least all the religions could find the « real » truth between them to arrive at a consensus to only 1 ….then I guess the discussion would be easier .
For now the gods themselves aren’t even able to reach a consensus o0 ,shrug .

ATHEISM FOR DUMMIES

or

ATHEISM IS FOR DUMMIES


THE BIGGEST ABSURDITY OF ATHEISTIC NATURALISM: EVERYTHING SOMEWAY, SOMEHOW EITHER EVOLVED INTO OR “CREATED” ITS OPPOSITE:

1. Inanimate matter became and/or created animate life (i.e. NON-life became LIFE).

2. A purposeless, unintended universe created a world populated by beings that could intentionally do things with a purpose.

3. A deterministic universe created a world with beings that could determine their own actions (aka “Free Will”).

4. An uncaring, amoral universe created a world with beings that care for others and have morals.

5. A physical “big bang” created a world replete with NON-physical things (i.e. IDEAS).

6. NOTHING created EVERYTHING (see A Universe from Nothing by biophysicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss.).

7. Chaos and disorder evolved into an orderly cosmos governed by physical laws

8. Non-conscious matter created a world populated with conscious beings.


Anyone who believes any of the above is a dum-dum whose mind lives in Fantasy Land. (In my humble opinion, of course.)

Food for thought from the provocative (and often acerbic), Dr. Peter S. Ruckman:


The First Cause of limitless space must be limitless.
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal in duration.
The First Cause of perpetual motion must be endless in power.
The First Cause of unbounded variety must be omnipresent.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of consciousness must be personal.
The First Cause of feeling must be emotional.
The First Cause of will must be volitional.
The First Cause of ethics must be moral.
The First Cause of religion must be spiritual.
The First Cause of love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.

Science's god is amoral, unfeeling, neuter, impersonal, and unable to hold any creature accountable. He is sterile and senile.

Source: Ruckman Reference Bible, Appendix 20, p.1705

There is a difference between claiming those thing and what science can proves .

Science do not say the bigbang created the universe from nothing .
Science is humble in not declaring with absolute certainty they know the truth .
Science is just saying the Big Bang is where the evidences leads them and for now try to expand its knowledge upon it …..

U got some deep indoctrination ingrain in you .
Instead of trying to quack non sense at thing u clearly do seem not knowing , why instead u dont try to win your own battle on your terrain about which religions is right or wrong ?

And fwiw claiming god exist the way you see it is exactly claiming something came from nothing aka god .

Chucky, I tried being nice and actually addressing your whole “Atheism is for dummies” nonsense claptrap in a previous post. Now I am going to go the other way and maybe you will get the idea of what happens when we use incorrect premises, beg questions, argue against straw men, etc.

1. Theists believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen from nothing, but an omniscient, omnipotent being capable of creating such a complex universe did.

2. Theists believe that God is constantly watching us, just waiting for us to screw up and will punish us with eternal damnation and torture when we do screw up, but he loves us.

3. Theists believe that the only reason we die is that a couple of people are an apple a few thousand years ago, despite the fact that God is merciful and just and would NEVER punish anyone for something that someone else did.

4. Theists believe that God is omnipotent, meaning he presumably could just forgive everyoneÂ’s sins. Yet for some reason he felt the need to torture and kill his son in order to forgive us. Guess he just wanted to see Jesus suffer.

5. Theists believe that a set of writings created thousands of years ago are completely inerrant, despite the fact that there are numerous internal contradictions within the scriptures, such as two completely different creation accounts, two different genealogies for Jesus (not even considering the error that JesusÂ’ genealogy is traced through Joseph, who is not even biologically related to Jesus if the theist account is go be believed), and various contradictory accounts in the gospels.

I am not great at the whole insulting thing, so I will not go on. We are not going to change each other’s beliefs. Could we please be respectful. Your whole “atheism is for dummies” thing is just a bunch of misunderstandings of science, quesbegging, false assumptions etc., much like my list is.

I dont think it is a straw man, the target is specifically atheists. It is not necessary to see this as a personal attack, for instance an agnostic would entertain elements of such ideas and may be open to considering the logic of his more atheistic positions. I think the logic is reasonable, of course the conclusion is outside reason, because reason alone cannot answer such questions. Whether that remains within a logical framework is why this question arouses such ongoing interest and controversy.
The dichotomy here is not science vs God but theism vs atheism, intelligent design or... some probabilistic freak circumstance. Perhaps if the position is characterised as silly that is because it is.

Calling someone dumb is not an insult? Sorry, not buying that. And the nature of the post is such that the items are intended to be read as obviously true and that atheists are too stupid to recognize such obvious truth. Well, that is certainly questionable. For example that list takes as an unassailable truth that free will exists. That certainly is debatable; we think we have free will because we experience it as such, but it is entirely possible that our experience of free will is entirely the result of a physical configuration of our brain. That physical configuration could be entirely determined by prior brain states and physical laws. Hence free will is really just a result of a deterministic process. But no, we atheists are just dummies.

If reason can’t be use to answer such question then any « imaginable » answers are possible .
That do not have much value in the « real » world .
Probably why so many different religions existed before and some still exist today …
Because it’s based on nothing but faith , imagination .
Faith, isn’t a good description of reality ….


Ps: there was many straw man on what science is and how to interpret it in the post .

U are the beach , a huge tsunami is coming in 30 sec upon u , surely destroying the nearby village not far behind killing many people .

Theist not even 40 years ago -> I’ll drop down on my knee and pray to god
(btw whichever he choses from …)
Hoping a miracle will happen (act of god right ?)
And save my family from that disaster .

Atheist today , a believer in « reality , reason and science » , factors that as helped creating cell phones ->
Calling his familly and tell them to leave the village right away aka no need for a miracle from any gods .

Question : who’s got the most chance to save his family ?

Yes the needs of gods saving life diminished as the human race evolve with science more and more .
And I’m not even talking about the medical science today compare to the efficiency of prayers being used 100 years ago to heal people .

That is how I think about theist vs atheist .
Result on earth .