Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

[Zhavric]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out (I haven't read the entire thread). The reason that theists and atheists argue so much is because theists have a different set of logical rules for evaluating claims that pertain to theism (particularly Christianity). This is why a Christian and an atheist can agree there's no such thing as:

• Trolls
• Gnomes
• Unicorns
• Xenu
• Allah
• Fairies
• Closet Monsters
• Bug-eyed Aliens from Mars
• Hippogrifs
• Chipocabras(sp?)
• Vampires
• Wizards
• Werewolves
• X-men-like Mutants
• Ents
• Giants
• Orcs
• Hobbits
• Elves
• Halflings
• Magic Dwarves
• Cthulu
• Greek Gods
• Persian Gods
• Roman Gods
• Asyrian Gods
• Mesopotamiam Gods
• Sea Serpents
• Mothmen

... but insist that there was a self-fathering cosmic jewish zombie.

Theists are conditioned from an early age to believe without evidence or to accept non-evidence as evidence. That's why these debates go on the way they do. It's hard for theists to even be aware of their conditioning let alone examine it or discuss it.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Winter wind Well not everything is nothing all at once, other wise we wouldn't be here. Everything is equal to 0. But specifically...The net momentum of everything is 0.

I don't buy into this idea. Can you prove that there is the same amount of matter as antimatter?

No, there's a logic. If I take two objects and put them in a basket with to other objects, the total I have is four. "It just does" is no good.

You use logic to arrive at the conclusion that 2+2=4, but 2+2=4 is, just is.

Why do we live in a finely tuned universe. Wouldn't be more logical that some things were a little flat (music reference) if it were an accident?

How do we even know if the parameters that shape our universe could take on different values? Changing the parametric values is not even a testable theory.

I don't believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity nor do I believe it was an accident. The universe is everything that always was. To quote Sagan, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Ergo, our universe and it's laws are only one in a broad spectrum of others.

Is this a fact or a untestable theory?

The universe was nothing, but something changed that and ripples occurred in the form of the big bang.

The universe cannot be nothing. How can we have nothing, and still have a universe?

Everything in this universe can be canceled out by something else. Matter is eliminated by antimatter. Momentum can be directed towards it self to cancel. technically it is possible for everything in the universe to just erase itself by merging with it's counterpart.

Aren't you operating under the assumption that there is the same amount of matter as antimatter? Is this true?

Are you with me? or was my circular logic a little too unclear. (I wish I could show you in person. I'm better at explaining physics face to face...)

I think I am following you, but I not quite sure. I don't know what you are trying to prove. An intelligent creator?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Apologies if this has already been pointed out (I haven't read the entire thread). The reason that theists and atheists argue so much is because theists have a different set of logical rules for evaluating claims that pertain to theism (particularly Christianity). This is why a Christian and an atheist can agree there's no such thing as:

As far as you know....

But seriously, I don't disagree with that argument. There is no evidence I can present to prove God's existence.

And so we have faith. Which is going to make you roll your eyes and rightfully. faith isn't fact, it isn't scientific, so I can't present it as either. I'm just going to say what you've probably heard a trillion times and are sick of it: you have to experience faith to understand why I'm believing something without facts.

... but insist that there was a self-fathering cosmic jewish zombie.

ahaha. You say potato.

Theists are conditioned from an early age to believe without evidence or to accept non-evidence as evidence. That's why these debates go on the way they do. It's hard for theists to even be aware of their conditioning let alone examine it or discuss it.

One of my parents is religious, the other is not. Therefore, I had a choice to be influenced either way. I was going to be Atheist, until I tried one thing. I promised myself I would "open my heart" (a pretty way of saying "tricking you mind into thinking it's real") for seven days, then I would throw in the towel.
I got my experience on the fifth day. You meditate and try to feel the area around you and think that there is a force around you that goes everywhere, beyond earth and beyond everything, and that it has the power to individually give you a hug.

Stupid as it may sound, I'm a Christian now (though an odd one by my own admission.)

However, I'm not saying your stupid or closed minded or evil or whatever. Logically you shouldn't believe in God. So I'm not blaming you or expecting you to treat my post with anything other then utter contempt (like you should). I'm just telling you why I'm a Theist.

Quote by: Voluntary I don't buy into this idea. Can you prove that there is the same amount of matter as antimatter?

Actually it's a theory of physics called CPT-symmetry
CPT symmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In all honesty, this is beyond me, but it seems to be related to the theory of everything.

You use logic to arrive at the conclusion that 2+2=4, but 2+2=4 is, just is.

You mean logic itself just exists. I understand that argument, because we use logic to explain everything. It's the most fundamental part of our knowledge. To imagine other kinds of logic is impossible. But that doesn't exclude it's possibility.

I don't believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity nor do I believe it was an accident. The universe is everything that always was. To quote Sagan, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Haha, I actually did a long research paper on Sagan and his views on religion. My argument is: why can't God be apart of those cosmos?

Is this a fact or a untestable theory?

It's string theory.

YouTube - Imagining the Tenth Dimension

It's logical, I don't know about untestable.

The universe cannot be nothing. How can we have nothing, and still have a universe?

Well, there are two possibilities (as I see it).

1) before the big bang, the universe was an infinitesimally small dot of crushed mass and energy. It explodes one day. (oh, the universe expands. It started at the big bang and grew. It isn't defined as the entire plane that we exist on.)

2) there was nothing before the big bang and the energy came into being. Now I know you think that I think this is God's doing, but actually, there is a scientific theory that it was another universe that caused this energy by "crashing" into another and causing a blast of energy. Ask lullaby chainer for details. I'm not saying that's how the energy got there, but I do think it is a possibility the energy came from somewhere other then this universe.

Aren't you operating under the assumption that there is the same amount of matter as antimatter? Is this true?

Actually, no there isn't. It's called the CP violation. There is slightly more matter then antimatter. However, this is an approximation and isn't fatal to the theory. The theory just needs refining.

I think I am following you, but I not quite sure. I don't know what you are trying to prove. An intelligent creator?

The possibility of one.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind As far as you know.... But seriously, I don't disagree with that argument. There is no evidence I can present to prove God's existence. And so we have faith. Which is going to make you roll your eyes and rightfully. faith isn't fact, it isn't scientific, so I can't present it as either.

Ah, but there's the problem. You are attempting to present it scientifically. I'm confident that you're not aware that you're doing this because a lot of your beliefs aren't scientific, but the core ones are. What do I mean by that?

Anything that has a definite answer... anything that does or does not exist... is a scientific question. Stating "Believing in the message written in the bible has helped me be a better person" is a statement of faith that doesn't require evidence. Stating "There was a person named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago and was literally the son of god" is absolutely a scientific claim. Either he existed or he didn't. One or the other. He didn't exist for you, but not exist for me. That makes it a scientific difference. If there were scientific evidence, Christians would trumpet it as loud as possible to anyone and everyone.

Think of it this way. Think of Superman. Truth, justice and the American way. A good message, right. Now imagine someone said, "Superman is real, but that's a matter of faith, not a scientific claim." You'd laugh. You'd point out that saying Superman is real is impossible. Either the person is wrong or using a bogus set of logical rules.

I'm just going to say what you've probably heard a trillion times and are sick of it: you have to experience faith to understand why I'm believing something without facts.

It's not a matter of "experiencing faith". It's a matter of being conditioned to associate a specific repetoire of feelings are associated with a set of claims.

One of my parents is religious, the other is not. Therefore, I had a choice to be influenced either way.

I'm highly skeptical of this claim. If it's true, it puts you in the minority.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric I'm highly skeptical of this claim. If it's true, it puts you in the minority.

Oh yes, I don't doubt I'm a minority. You just have to see my views of the legitimacy of the Bible and on heaven and hell's existence to see how much of a minority I am. I'm basically an Atheist trying to see how Christianity could work logically.

Either the person is wrong or using a bogus set of logical rules.

The only thing I know for sure about Christianity is that God exists. That's the only "truth" I can give. The rest is unimportant (logically).

He didn't exist for you, but not exist for me.

?
You don't believe Jesus existed, if only as a man?
There have been outside references to him, and why make him up? It makes more sense that he would exist and spark all this, even if he was just a very charismatic man.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind Oh yes, I don't doubt I'm a minority. You just have to see my views of the legitimacy of the Bible and on heaven and hell's existence to see how much of a minority I am. I'm basically an Atheist trying to see how Christianity could work logically.

It can't. I'm not sure why this is something that's taken more than a few moments for you. Christianity's claims are very obviously impossible.

The only thing I know for sure about Christianity is that God exists.

Correction: you want "god exists" to be a true statement. That doesn't make it a true statement and changing your definition for "true statement" doesn't help either.

? You don't believe Jesus existed, if only as a man?

Actually, he was a myth based on a few other rabble rousing rabbis from the first centuries (bce and ce). Have you ever looked into the political climate of Judea circe 70 ce?

There have been outside references to him,

No credible ones. Absolutely no one mentions Jesus at the time of his existence even though the bible alleges he's being mobbed by big crowds of people. No one talks about him positively or negatively. There's nothing. And we do have writing from that era including but not limited to Philo of Alexandria who hung out with Pilate.

and why make him up?

The short version is that the Jews were looking for a hero about then. Understand that the one constant in Jewish folklore/history is this: Things are good and then start to suck. When things suck, someone really cool shows up and saves the day. It happens over and over again. Well, in 70 ce (about the time the first gospel was written) things REALLY sucked for the Jews. They had been conquered by the Romans. Their leadership was corrupt. Their temple had been destroyed. They were being taxed for the fire in Rome ON TOP of what they were already taxed.

Take a bunch of desperate unsophisticated hero-hungry yokels and feed them the line, "Hey, your hero was here. He suffered more than you. He'll be back any second now" and voila! You've got the seeds of the religion that will one day give you inquisitions and crusades.

It makes more sense that he would exist and spark all this, even if he was just a very charismatic man.

Of course that doesn't make sense. Look at what you just did there. Would you say, "It makes sense that there was a Superman that the comic is based off of" or "It makes sense that there used to be unicorns that the legend was based off of."

No.

You're invoking a different set of logical rules that you've been indoctrinated to believe. Stop.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Winter wind My argument is: why can't God be apart of those cosmos?

What do you mean 'apart' of the cosmos? In what sense? Is this god a bi-product of the cosmos or does it also transcend it?

1) before the big bang, the universe was an infinitesimally small dot of crushed mass and energy. It explodes one day. (oh, the universe expands. It started at the big bang and grew. It isn't defined as the entire plane that we exist on.)

There is still something, not nothing. Nothing has never existed according to our knowledge. Something is the default position.

2) there was nothing before the big bang and the energy came into being. Now I know you think that I think this is God's doing, but actually, there is a scientific theory that it was another universe that caused this energy by "crashing" into another and causing a blast of energy. Ask lullaby chainer for details. I'm not saying that's how the energy got there, but I do think it is a possibility the energy came from somewhere other then this universe.

I think you are talking about the multi-universe theory. Currently, it is speculative. Again, nothing has never existed if previous universes caused our universe.

Actually, no there isn't. It's called the CP violation. There is slightly more matter then antimatter. However, this is an approximation and isn't fatal to the theory. The theory just needs refining.

Even if it is a zero-sum game, this does not prove "nothing", it only proves a zero-sum game in which "something" exists.

The imbalance between matter and anti-matter may point out potential flaws in the Standard Model. My nascent understanding is that CP-violation and Baryogenesis are still in their hypothetical phases.

The possibility of one.

Sure there is a possibility of an intelligent creator. There is also a possibility of atoms forming together into a teapot around some distant planet in the horsehead nebula. As of yet, there is no evidence to warrant such a belief.

[Sonart]

.

Just for the halibut, I'm as atheist as they come, but I fully believe that Jesus existed, and was likely a charismatic man of elevated consciousness, just as I believe the same about Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, Buddha and Confucius. I just don't believe any of them were supernatural.

.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Sonart . Just for the halibut, I'm as atheist as they come, but I fully believe that Jesus existed, and was likely a charismatic man of elevated consciousness, just as I believe the same about Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, Buddha and Confucius. I just don't believe any of them were supernatural. .

Dito, sort of - as I'm as agnostic as they come. Anyone else want to join the "Rational Humans, Rationally Assessing the Historical Evidence" club?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric It can't. I'm not sure why this is something that's taken more than a few moments for you. Christianity's claims are very obviously impossible.

Well, no they aren't. They are possible, just unlikely.

Correction: you want "god exists" to be a true statement. That doesn't make it a true statement and changing your definition for "true statement" doesn't help either.

I could use "faith experience" or play the "I know what I'm talking about" card, but neither would convince you...leading to the root of the argument.

I think we found it.

Actually, he was a myth based on a few other rabble rousing rabbis from the first centuries (bce and ce). Have you ever looked into the political climate of Judea circe 70 ce?

Believe, me. I'm going to look into this and hopefully prove you wrong. But it's late here (2:00) to do full scale research, so I ask for your patience.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Just for the halibut, I'm as atheist as they come, but I fully believe that Jesus existed, and was likely a charismatic man of elevated consciousness, just as I believe the same about Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, Buddha and Confucius. I just don't believe any of them were supernatural.

Yep, I have to say, I reside firmly in that camp as well.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games Pride may be the worst of the Seven Sins, but surely HelioPrime has enough to realize there is nothing more abominable than playing the victim.

More sweeping generalizations.

Funny coming from people who normally claim the innocent oppressed status.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You/they set themselves up for it by saying they believe the teachings, and then proceed to directly disobey those supposedly learned lessons. It could also be considered good advice, or constructive crticism, if taken directly, because I'm not adding, or subtracting from the message, but attempting to give them a clearer understanding. ( In this example, as always, I was careful to qualify my statement, in an attempt to reduce the number of misunderstandings, but, with you, there seems to be no way of adequately communicating my thoughts to you, since you seem to have so many preconcieved notions of your own.

And what are the learned lessons MB?

The lessons are how people interpret, which varies. So there is no central command or guide to follow so you can't accuse people of not following the bible. More to the point would you want people to literally follow it and establish dominion over all the world?

[Maryjane]

So there is no central command or guide to follow so you can't accuse people of not following the bible.

Not even the big 10 commandments?

[Hurt]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Dito, sort of - as I'm as agnostic as they come. Anyone else want to join the "Rational Humans, Rationally Assessing the Historical Evidence" club?

Me, please.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: HelioPrime More sweeping generalizations. Funny coming from people who normally claim the innocent oppressed status.

I don't claim such status (too ugly) and I'm talking about individuals (you), not groups.

Isn't you calling what I say a sweeping generalization in such an obscure fashion ... a sweeping generalization?

While I'm at this, I would like to note I have never heard you articulate a criticism of anybody which didn't reflect on yourself to some degree (usually a large degree).

[Jack]

Let's not make this personal. Remember the rules and debate the topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime And what are the learned lessons MB? The lessons are how people interpret, which varies. So there is no central command or guide to follow so you can't accuse people of not following the bible. More to the point would you want people to literally follow it and establish dominion over all the world?

Quote by: Maryjane Not even the big 10 commandments?

Yeah, lets start there, and then perhaps move on to how we treat others, passing judgement on others, or taking pleasure in others misfortune.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Actually, he was a myth based on a few other rabble rousing rabbis from the first centuries (bce and ce). Have you ever looked into the political climate of Judea circe 70 ce?

Ok, I've looked this up a little better. Most historians have dismissed this concept.

The historian Michael Grant, writing in 1977, states that, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1977, 1995)

The only real place this is being argued is on the internet.

Take a bunch of desperate unsophisticated hero-hungry yokels and feed them the line, "Hey, your hero was here. He suffered more than you. He'll be back any second now" and voila! You've got the seeds of the religion that will one day give you inquisitions and crusades.

Instead of a bunch of rabbis just feeding people the line, A more realistic idea would be many people saying "Hey, your hero is here. Bow down and worship me."

There were many people claiming to be messiahs during those days. Jesus was just one of the few non-violent ones.

Of course that doesn't make sense. Look at what you just did there. Would you say, "It makes sense that there was a Superman that the comic is based off of" or "It makes sense that there used to be unicorns that the legend was based off of." No.

I don't think the metaphor works. Neither try to pass themselves off as real (you can find both in the fiction section).
Also I don't think I explained my logic right: People follow Jesus Christ's teachings as a religion. There was political upheaval. And they lasted to this day.

That sounds more like Buddha, or Confucius, as opposed to Superman and Unicorns.

If it was superman and unicorns, this probably would have become a legend.

However, I will recognize my logic as not solid, rather speculative.

Here is some better logic.

The roman empire and the Jewish authorities hated Christians (tried to wipe them out). Had Jesus not existed, they would have debunked his existence in an instant. Yet they recognize his existence, just opposed the idea that he was the son of God. Why?