Who wants to help me in my current debate?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
(29-08-2012 02:33 PM)J0ren Wrote:  @Impulse - the coincidence between your name and 'Next time, I should probably read the whole thread before I post' is just too funny not to point out; but both your posts are helpful. The free will vs heaven is particularly good. That thought has come to me before but I never really laid it out as an argument against the free will theodicy.
I'm glad you found them helpful. LOL about my name. Actually, the name is not related to being impulsive, but I understand the funny coincidence. Smile The name is a shorter version of one that came about on another site having nothing to do with atheism.

(29-08-2012 02:33 PM)J0ren Wrote:  It is terrifying for religious people that someone they care about leaves the faith. They are probably pretty sure I will be tortured for eternity for this.
I know this was a reply to Ghost, but it struck a chord with me because I have 2 family members who are very much hung up on that point. They constantly engage me in religious debates and I regularly receive mass cards among other things from them Rolleyes because they are so worried. I know they mean well and they do at least remain polite which is why I don't put an end to it. Who knows, maybe one or both will even consider my viewpoint some day. (Yeah, sure... ) In the meantime, I apparently have tons of strangers praying for me yet here I am on an atheist site. Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 10:35 PM
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
Well my debate went better than expected. This is the second priest I have cornered into admitting that a thorough and careful administration of logic and rationality necessarily leads to atheism. We both agreed that it will require a 'revelation from God' for persons such as myself who follow logic to its rational ends. I'm fine leaving it there!

To his credit, he also agreed that in the meantime I should live according to my rationality and my conscience. Considering this priest is also my Godfather, it is helpful for me that he isn't going to cause a huge ruckus over this. Actually I have overall been rather impressed with how the few people I have told have taken this so far. Aside from my wife almost leaving me (I think we are successfully patching that over), most people have given at worst a few weak arguments and then dropped it. Very little hostility so far. Of course, I have been very carefully selecting who I tell...

Thanks for the support people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 10:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2012 09:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
Catholicism teaches that faith is a virtue, freely gifted by the Holy Spirit. Reason is never sufficient in Roman Theology, to make the leap of faith. If the Spirit does not grant the grace, one does not have the virtue. It's basically god's fault, (lack of faith).

It's a waste of time to argue the existence of god. The argument presumes an already extant, (pre-existent) structure, (or concurrent structure), of the nature of reality, of existence and nonexistence, in which god exists, as a part of the structure, or nature. That is, existence and non existence are part of reality. [ BTW, existence has no property which does not require spacetime . (thus god cannot be the creator of spacetime). Every property of intelligent existence requires time ... thinking, loving, moving, acting, creating, and is a good argument all by itself. ] The structure, in reality, of existence and nonexistence, had to, at least concurrently, ( that means along with god, as long as god existed), (if not pre-existantly), be in place, or come into place, in reality, if god exists, and it presumes it's opposite, nonexistence, as a property also, in, or of, the structure of reality.

[ BTW, the writers of Genesis noticed this flaw. The priests, (it's a technical term in Biblical Studies, ..and I'm working on a large, long nerdy post of the origins of the Bible texts), but the "Priestly" source material in Genesis, (scholars call "P' for short), was added to the "J", ("J"ehovah/Yahweh) source to try to fix this flaw. The original text of Genesis started with verse two, we have today. The "P"riests added verse 1, to rectify this flaw, but it still does not quite cover all the bases. How and why we know that was added, and what was the original text is a long story, but I will explain that in the long nerdy post, hopefully will be done later this weekend .. I will link to it, here, and post it by itself, and it will be in the "dumb as shit Southern Baptist thread).

Existence is (a) "something" or property, a being has, but is not the being itself. If I exist, I "have" existence, I am not existence, itself. That means it has to be a property of a being, not the being itself. If god possesses existence, as a property of god, it's not the god itself, that means, that in the nature of, or structure of reality, something other than pure god, always existed, along with him/it.It's a descriptor or property of the god. So there are two choices. God IS existence, or god created existence, and possesses it. If god IS "existence", then we are all also could be gods, as we exist. If god "needs" existence to be, god is not god. The opposites, (existence/nonexistence) have to exist already, as part of the ground, (structure) of reality, and god could not be the creator of that structure, if he is a part of it, and necessarily participates in it. The already extant structure had to come from somewhere. The "nihilo", in "ex-nihilo" presumes a structure already in place, of being and nothingness. One cannot be subject to, or exist in, a system, or structure, ("exist in reality") AND be it's creator, (being/nothingness, positive/negative, plus/minus, existence/nonexistence etc.)

Either "existence" itself, (in their world), is non-contingent, (and thus god IS existence itself), OR, it's not, and the property, (existence as a contingent being), had to come into existence, as a result of god. That means god causes his own contingent status. That is meaningless. I have existence. If the possession of existence, per se, or sui generis, makes a being non-contingent, then I also am god. If it does not, then god's existence is not the thing that makes god god, and has to be non-contingent.

God cannot be existence itself, as nonexistence also exists along with existence, in reality and thus something "other " than god, always existed also.
If the nature of reality is that a non-contingent being exists, then, as long as that is real, non-existence exists also, and god cannot be the the creator of both, if he needs one to be real, and is not the other,and cannot be the creator of the nature of reality.

If the nature, (structure) of reality exists, contingently, apart from god, god cannot be a part of that reality, as it had to exist a priori, and god is not the creator of reality.

Think of it like a Windows program level. You just keep backing up/out another level. The, (or "a") structure of Windows, ('reality") is required, no matter how far you back up.

Edit : If you're debating Catholics, they like Aquinas ... here's why ole Tommy A, is a pile of dung :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ht=aquinas

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 10:58 PM
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
(27-08-2012 08:05 AM)DSessom Wrote:  The fastest way to end the debate is to get right to the root of their belief system

Correction:

The fastest way to end the debate is to lose it

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 11:49 PM
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
Here watch this, it literally has the answer to your very question at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diablo666's post
01-09-2012, 01:43 AM
RE: Who wants to help me in my current debate?
@Bucky Ball - wow, I didn't even follow most of that. Im going to have to read it a few more times.

@Diablo666 - I LOVE THAT VIDEO. I had never seen that before, it is hilarious! Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: