Are you an atheist?

[Alc]

Why couldn't the natural laws be created first and all material thereafter be subjected to them?

Once the laws were created, wouldn't it be impossible to spontaneously create material without violating them?

 

[Pauldohert]

Can someone explain the meaning of this thread?

 

[dan-cat]

Once the laws were created, wouldn't it be impossible to spontaneously create material without violating them?

Well God provides the loop-hole for that one. I'm not quite sure what the atheists explanation is.

 

[Alc]

Well God provides the loop-hole for that one. I'm not quite sure what the atheists explanation is.

So is there an uber-God who created God?

 

[dan-cat]

So is there an uber-God who created God?

No, not at all. There is simply an 'unmoved mover'.

 

[Alisa]

Since no one answered this question, Alisa, then I will take a shot at it. I don't know what the right word would be, disrespectful may be taking it to far, but I would think it would be at the very least, inconsiderate. If someone truly believes in one or all of the things you've listed, then why should it be so important to me to point out that they are "just a fantasy"? For me personally, I would rather keep my opinions to myself, find a subject that we could agree on and if they decided to approach the subject themselves and ask my opinion on it, I would hope from there that we could agree to disagree, agreeably.

But the crux of the question is, if someone told you with a straight face that unicorns exist, would you feel that you were being inconsiderate if you said you didn't think unicorns exist? My guess is no. You might choose not to confront the person, but I bet you would have no compunction about snickering about how silly that person is, once they were out of sight. What I am getting at is that religious belief seems to have some special status that belief in other imaginary things does not have.

At least with ghosts or UFOs, there is something to actually see. Ouma brought up the electromagnetic measurements that accompany some ghost sightings - in my mind, that indicates that there is something going on, but perhaps our scientific understanding has not progressed far enough to explain it. Likewise with UFOs, we know something is up there, but we just haven't figured out what it is yet. With god, there is nobody who has ever seen or measured anything, and yet we are supposed to have MORE respect for those who believe god exists than those who believe they see ghosts?

As far as keeping my inconsiderate opinions to myself, I just don't think that would result in much of a discussion.

 

[Pauldohert]

But the crux of the question is, if someone told you with a straight face that unicorns exist, would you feel that you were being inconsiderate if you said you didn't think unicorns exist? My guess is no. You might choose not to confront the person, but I bet you would have no compunction about snickering about how silly that person is, once they were out of sight. What I am getting at is that religious belief seems to have some special status that belief in other imaginary things does not have.

At least with ghosts or UFOs, there is something to actually see. Ouma brought up the electromagnetic measurements that accompany some ghost sightings - in my mind, that indicates that there is something going on, but perhaps our scientific understanding has not progressed far enough to explain it. Likewise with UFOs, we know something is up there, but we just haven't figured out what it is yet. With god, there is nobody who has ever seen or measured anything, and yet we are supposed to have MORE respect for those who believe god exists than those who believe they see ghosts?

As far as keeping my inconsiderate opinions to myself, I just don't think that would result in much of a discussion.

Are you saying you are snickering at those who believe in God , or is the belief in God and unicorns a totally differnat idea, despite what you try to imply?

 

[dan-cat]

What I am getting at is that religious belief seems to have some special status that belief in other imaginary things does not have.

To me the difference is obvious. Unicorns don't provide a set of values to live by. You are attempting to reduce an argument to absurdity, which is fine, but at least admit that is what you are doing.

At least with ghosts or UFOs, there is something to actually see.

Why are you so hung up on having to 'see' things? Since when can ethics or aesthetics be measured?

 

[Rabbie]

Once the laws were created, wouldn't it be impossible to spontaneously create material without violating them?

According to Einstein's well known equation E=MC2 (that should be C squared) but you know what I mean) Energy can be converted into mass or vice versa

 

[Brianwarnock]

But the crux of the question is, if someone told you with a straight face that unicorns exist, would you feel that you were being inconsiderate if you said you didn't think unicorns exist? My guess is no. You might choose not to confront the person, but I bet you would have no compunction about snickering about how silly that person is, once they were out of sight. What I am getting at is that religious belief seems to have some special status that belief in other imaginary things does not have.

.

You are wrong, I know Shane he would not sncker at any one's beliefs, besides only childish people snicker.

I might not believe in what the holy books say, but I do not have the arrogance to dismiss them as fairy tales when for centuries people of far greater knowledge and intellect than I, can accept their broad teachings.

Brian

 

[Alisa]

Are you saying you are snickering at those who believe in God , or is the belief in God and unicorns a totally differnat idea, despite what you try to imply?

Well I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not. What I was saying was that many people on this thread have complained that I and others have disrespected or insulted them by questioning their belief in god. But I believe many of those who complain would freely question people's belief in other imaginary creatures, like unicorns. Which brings me back to the question, why is belief in god somehow beyond question, while belief in other imaginary creatures is not?

 

[Alisa]

To me the difference is obvious. Unicorns don't provide a set of values to live by. You are attempting to reduce an argument to absurdity, which is fine, but at least admit that is what you are doing.



Why are you so hung up on having to 'see' things? Since when can ethics or aesthetics be measured?

I say: Do you believe unicorns exist?
You say: Yes
I say: I don't think unicorns don't exist because noone has ever seen one.

Have I insulted you? No. Now replace "unicorns" with "god".
Now have I insulted you? Yes. Why is that?

Since when is ethics or aesthetics a creature that created the entire world?

 

[dan-cat]

You are wrong, I know Shane he would not sncker at any one's beliefs, besides only childish people snicker.

I agree. I think we can do without the character assassination...

I might not believe in what the holy books say, but I do not have the arrogance to dismiss them as fairy tales when for centuries people of far greater knowledge and intellect than I, can accept their broad teachings.

Brian

Here is a fascinating example of this...

 

[Rich]

when for centuries people of far greater knowledge and intellect than I, can accept their broad teachings.

Brian

But far fewer these days Bri

 

[Pauldohert]

Which leads me to the belief that you don't understand the obvious differance.

 

[dan-cat]

I say: Do you believe unicorns exist?
You say: Yes
I say: I don't think unicorns don't exist because noone has ever seen one.

Have I insulted you? No. Now replace "unicorns" with "god".
Now have I insulted you? Yes. Why is that?

I'm not saying you're being insulting. Please read my post again.

Since when is ethics or aesthetics a creature that created the entire world?

You said that at least you can measure 'ghosts' implying that things that cannot be measured are in some way of no value, like unicorns. You are the one making the analogies, take responsibility for them.

 

[Alc]

No, not at all. There is simply an 'unmoved mover'.

I'll admit to not having heard that term before, so I looked it up (never let it be said I'm unwilling to learn ).

From what I could see in my, admittedly brief, search the idea of an unmoved mover has been refuted by a lot of recent scientists, incl. Michio Kaku.

Also, if the ultimate idea is that God created himself, why doesn't that make a mockery of the idea of 'natural' laws? This person/being/force can break all natural laws at will, so how can any science be relied upon?

 

[Rich]

Here is a fascinating example of this...

Well he had to conclude that the Big Bang was created by god, he was Catholic..............

 

[Alisa]

You are wrong, I know Shane he would not sncker at any one's beliefs, besides only childish people snicker.

I might not believe in what the holy books say, but I do not have the arrogance to dismiss them as fairy tales when for centuries people of far greater knowledge and intellect than I, can accept their broad teachings.

Brian

When Copernicus discovered that the earth orbits around the sun, "for centuries people of far greater knowledge and intellect than him" had believed that the sun orbited the earth. But that didn't stop him from tossing out their "beliefs" about what was true and looking at the evidence to discover what the actual truth was.

 

[Rich]

Which leads me to the belief that you don't understand the obvious differance.

Eh?