Imagine There'e No Heaven

[Jester]

LOL. I'm honored. Pulling from your private stash and everything.

However, being married, I have all the instruction I need on how to get laid right on my coffee table...

lol, okay that was pretty good.

[Maddhattter]

Thank you Hattter.....i just figured out you are absolutely terrified of stepping out of your comfort zone. You have alot of opinions on science and God.....but i dont see shit about anything else.....with the exception of maybe a computer post here and there.

No need to step out of my comfort zone. I was a theist, Christian specifically, for the majority of my life. At least it will be a majority until my next birthday. Then it will be half.

What I have put forward are not opinions of science and god. Demonstrable, reproducible, independently verifiable evidence that science uses is not opinion, nor is the lack of it that theism uses.

As I oft pointed out in this forum, those who claim to not believe in religious matters are the ones who are most obsessed about them.

I have spoken very little on religious matters. I have repeatedly asked for support of the claims made by theists and demonstrated the fallacies that are present in the presented data. Data and accuracy are not religious matters. They are important to everything, if you have any desire to believing as many true things as possible, and as few untrue things as possible.

Now, let's get back to that magic "singularity" at the heart of the Big Bang theory that mankind's logic and science hath introduced to us.......

You can't get there. Logic and science has not and does not suppose magic in anything. Only theism does that.

[Jester]

No need to step out of my comfort zone.

[The King]

You can't get there. Logic and science has not and does not suppose magic in anything. Only theism does that.

Science can not prove a "singularity" ever existed, much less demonstrate how it somehow manifested itself out of nothing. Hence, magic is indeed what science is presenting here.

[Maddhattter]

Science can not prove a "singularity" ever existed, much less demonstrate how it somehow manifested itself out of nothing. Hence, magic is indeed what science is presenting here.

That's why it's a hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis is just the one that matches all the evidence we have. Science follows the evidence.

Could the origins of the universe be something else? Sure.
Could the idea that the universe originated be a nonsensical concept? Sure.

Still doesn't once invoke magic.

[JC316]

Regardless, for the sake of discussion, I’m willing to concede that this programmer is a better historian than… well, historians.

What he has failed to do in his tirade is demonstrate when, at any point, any of the deaths he references above were done in the name of atheism. The link I presented is an incident in which the perpetrator has stated that he performed his murderous act in the name of Christianity, in the same way that the Muslims who attached the Libyan embassy stated that they did so in the name of Islam. He has demonstrated nothing beyond his assertion that these people are atheists and they did bad things. Again, for the sake of the discussion, I won’t touch on whether or not his numbers are accurate. If his assertion is that atheists can be evil, again, I’ll agree wholeheartedly. He just has a long way to go before he can demonstrate that any of this was done in the name of atheism. Ultimately, he has demonstrated correlation based on the data provided. What he has not done, is even shown that any causation exists.

The common example of this flaw in reasoning is: “Both Hitler and Stalin are mass murderers, both also had mustaches. Therefore, all people who have mustaches are mass murderers.” Surely you can see how the latter doesn’t necessarily follow the former. Sure, people with mustaches could be mass murderers, but there is no reason to think that they are.

His entire assertion is that when an atheist leader’s orders cause a death, it is the result of atheism. If we accept that, then apply it to the opposite side of the coin the picture changes drastically. This would mean that nearly every death cause or ordered by a governmental action is theistic; of which Christians are a subset of. This radically changes the numbers his is presenting. Especially when you consider the fact that he is comparing the actions of a group of 52 people to the actions of any individual.

So, even if we take what he says at face value, his argument does not stand on when applied beyond his hen pecked sample nor does his conclusion follow that these people’s atheism led to their actions. All this before any of his other claims are scrutinized.

While the acts weren't done in the name of atheism, an atheist might be more prone to horrible acts of violence because they don't believe in punishment in the afterlife. A christian might hesitate to be a mass murderer because he believes that god will cast him into hell for doing it. The idea of everlasting torment is a good motivator and the exact reason I can't stand religion.

[Maddhattter]

While the acts weren't done in the name of atheism, an atheist might be more prone to horrible acts of violence because they don't believe in punishment in the afterlife.

They also might be prone to less horrible acts, as they see value in a finite life due to their lack of belief in an afterlife.

While both of these are possible, there is still no indicator of causation between violence and atheism. Atheism only covers the position one takes on the belief of a truth claim. When it comes to atheism, there are no tenets or dogma. The only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in deities. I can't see how a lack of belief motivate someone to do anything.

Again, I've never argued that atheists cannot and have not done bad things. Only that there is no indication of causation between their actions and their atheism.

A christian might hesitate to be a mass murderer because he believes that god will cast him into hell for doing it. The idea of everlasting torment is a good motivator and the exact reason I can't stand religion.

They might also go forth and murder those who they feel are witches so that they might not "suffer a witch to live" because they feel that doing so is a divine edict.

However, the only way to know what is motivating someone is to look at their actions, reasons, and justifications. As the ultimate authority on someone's actions is them. As of this moment, we have no way that I know of to pull thoughts from the brain to discover one's motivations. All we can do is follow the evidence.

This is the reason that I used the example that I did, in response to Jester's blanket statement about not having to fear Christians killing you in the name of their religion. Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the shooting, made it very clear that he was Christian and performed the deed in the name of his religion and for "Christian cultural heritage".

That is not intended to imply that all, or even a majority, of Christians are like that. It's only intended to demonstrate that there is still reason to fear Christians killing in the name of their religion.

[BradM]

Is this real life?

[Maddhattter]

Is this real life?

Not for you. According to the records, you were given the fake life in order to be part of the control group. Fortunately, me telling you this is within the parameters of the experiment. Unfortunately, telling you any more will poison the well and require termination of the experiment and all those participating.

[BradM]

Not for you. According to the records, you were given the fake life in order to be part of the control group. Fortunately, me telling you this is within the parameters of the experiment. Unfortunately, telling you any more will poison the well and require termination of the experiment and all those participating.

Quoting a dumb mofo!

[JC316]

They also might be prone to less horrible acts, as they see value in a finite life due to their lack of belief in an afterlife.

While both of these are possible, there is still no indicator of causation between violence and atheism. Atheism only covers the position one takes on the belief of a truth claim. When it comes to atheism, there are no tenets or dogma. The only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in deities. I can't see how a lack of belief motivate someone to do anything.

Again, I've never argued that atheists cannot and have not done bad things. Only that there is no indication of causation between their actions and their atheism.



They might also go forth and murder those who they feel are witches so that they might not "suffer a witch to live" because they feel that doing so is a divine edict.

However, the only way to know what is motivating someone is to look at their actions, reasons, and justifications. As the ultimate authority on someone's actions is them. As of this moment, we have no way that I know of to pull thoughts from the brain to discover one's motivations. All we can do is follow the evidence.

This is the reason that I used the example that I did, in response to Jester's blanket statement about not having to fear Christians killing you in the name of their religion. Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the shooting, made it very clear that he was Christian and performed the deed in the name of his religion and for "Christian cultural heritage".

That is not intended to imply that all, or even a majority, of Christians are like that. It's only intended to demonstrate that there is still reason to fear Christians killing in the name of their religion.

People don't need a reason to kill, they cling to excuses not to kill. Finite life vs an eternity of torture, which is the better excuse to not kill? "I don't want to kill him because I will go to hell" or "I don't want to kill him because his life will be over"

Anyone that is religious and wants to kill makes it up in their mind that they are doing God's work and that seriously rustles my jimmies. "I will kill that man because he is against God".

Sure there is no proven link, but you get the idea. A certain mindset might be drawn to a certain belief, like a douchebag to a BMW. Could be that killers just don't believe in anything, thus they don't believe in God.

[God]

I mean, the lights are still on and all, but honestly, there's better tv in prison. We had to cut HBO and Cinemax up here. It's not really that big a deal to get in anymore.

[Maddhattter]

People don't need a reason to kill, they cling to excuses not to kill.

I reject your premise as unsubstantiated. All evidence indicates that people, in general, do need a reason to kill. We're biologically wired to be empathetic animals and we have problems killing others of our kind. If we didn't, it's incredibly unlikely that we would have survived our evolutionary development.

The fact that the vast majority of people cannot handle the killing of others is also evident in the process the military uses to train their personnel. Members are taught to shoot at human shaped targets and their enemy is dehumanized using 'us vs them' terminology and conditioning. Even then, a significant number of people are still no prepared to kill another person. Even if it would mean saving their own life.

Finite life vs an eternity of torture, which is the better excuse to not kill? "I don't want to kill him because I will go to hell" or "I don't want to kill him because his life will be over"

Anyone that is religious and wants to kill makes it up in their mind that they are doing God's work and that seriously rustles my jimmies. "I will kill that man because he is against God".

You destroy the very point you seem to be attempting to make. If believers will rationalize their actions to conform to their beliefs, the threat of hell is negligible, if existent.

That doesn't even begin to cover the idea that the majority of Christian doctrine asserts of being forgiven for anything if you let Jesus into your heart and promise not to do it again.

That's the problem with religion. It sets an incredibly dangerous precident. Once you introduce the acceptance of an idea that is not indicated or evidenced that is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of everything, you open the door to accepting every claim. BrianC is a perfect example of this.

Sure there is no proven link, but you get the idea. A certain mindset might be drawn to a certain belief, like a douchebag to a BMW. Could be that killers just don't believe in anything, thus they don't believe in God.

Actually, the causation link is demonstrated between the violence of some believers and their religion. Their doctrine demands it. Or at least, by all indications, they think it does and you cannot demonstrate that anything is contrary to the will of an apparition that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

On the other hand, atheism has no doctrine beyond the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe in an afterlife. There are even atheistic religions. The only common thread among atheists is the position that the theist has not met their burden of proof in regards to their god claim.

[The King]

That's why it's a hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis is just the one that matches all the evidence we have. Science follows the evidence.

Could the origins of the universe be something else? Sure.
Could the idea that the universe originated be a nonsensical concept? Sure.

Still doesn't once invoke magic.

The evidence you claim supports the big bang hypothesis is no better than the Biblical account of Creation, simply because you decide to give it more credence. Equally true is that since the big bang hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, it is no more or no less likely to be correct than the nonsensical notion that the universe appeared by magic.

[Maddhattter]

The evidence you claim supports the big bang hypothesis is no better than the Biblical account of Creation, simply because you decide to give it more credence.

Considering that you, nor any other person to date, can use demonstrable, independently verifiable evidence to support their creation myth and science uses exactly that to support the big bang model, you couldn't be more wrong. Repeatable, demonstrable, independently verifiable evidence is the only type of evidence that can carry any credence as it’s the only evidence that can be shown to be different from fantasy.

In fact, I'll even agree that the notion that the universe appearing by magic is a nonsense notion, unfortunately that's exactly what the biblical account of creation is. It's the Abrahamic god going "Abracadabra!" and using magic to make the universe out of nothing.

That's what I find hilarious about the creationist position. All of the things creationists claim that science does wrong, in regards to the questions about the origins of the universe(claiming an origin from absolute nothing, invoking magic, not relying on the scientific process), are exactly what the bible claims happened. All the while, science supports nothing of the sort while supporting the big bang model as the best model we have at this time.

Equally true is that since the big bang hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, it is no more or no less likely to be correct than the nonsensical notion that the universe appeared by magic.

Not all hypotheses are created equal. Just because we haven't narrowed down the model enough to graduate it to a theory, does not mean that any other nonsense that anyone makes up is a valid alternative. While it is not yet "proven", it is still the model that best represents the evidence. Again, this has nothing to do with what I give more credence. It has to do with the only evidence that can be shown to be different that a delusion. It’s the same demonstrable, independently verifiable evidence that religion has consistently failed to provide in its own defense.

However, I will again concede, relying on actual scientific evidence is only important if you have any desire to believing as many true things as possible, and as few untrue things as possible.