Atheists: Fully Human?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And it comes back to beliefs...You don't believe that there could be a scientific explanation for it. I believe that there possibly could be.

The fact of the matter is we just don't know. The beginning of the universe does not require a "god." Is it possible? Sure, but it's not a requirement.

---

I do believe there is a scientific explanation for the entire universe as we know it. I think there has to be something that creates or sets in motion that "science." I don't think science can create/start itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KowboyKoop

I do believe there is a scientific explanation for the entire universe as we know it. I think there has to be something that creates or sets in motion that "science." I don't think science can create/start itself.

---

What Houston seems to be trying to say though, is what sets in motion the thing that sets science in motion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

There doesn't have to be a "first thing" or a "creator" in order for things to exist. That's a flawed way of viewing things. If you think that there must have been A as the cause of B, then you're thinking too linear and simplistically. There doesn't have to be a finite point or a cause. B can stand on its own.

Basically, there probably is no "before" and there doesn't "have to be." No reason to ask moot questions and get confused over them.

---

Well, everyone in the world thinks too simplistically when it comes to this issue, there is no possible way for us to know. There's no way to not have flawed thinking when it comes to this.

Also, I don't mean "god" as is some being that overlooks every facet of life today. I just think there had to have been some god or creator at the very beginning. I am not saying that science couldn't exist today without a god...I just think it had to have been started by something that we would refer to as a "god."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

What Houston is trying to say though, is what sets in motion the thing that sets science in motion

---

..and I believe that a "god" would be able to create itself, I don't think it would be bound by time. I think it would be capable of working in a way that is beyond any form possible of human comprehsion. With science, we can comprehend it as we learn about it/experience it. With a god, I don't think it's possible. Thus, I think a god would be able to start up on its own.

I guess I just find it difficult to understand how people assume:
1) Something can't come from nothing
2) Something must have been created by a creator, who in turn created the universe
3) If we call this creator god, then there's no need to question where this creator came from and it's ok for him/her/it to come from nothing
4) Problem/Paradox solved

I understand the first platitude, but you guys start to lose me on the ensuing steps


**Not trying to encite you KK, just wondering why you find it more plausible for a being with creative powers to come from nothing but lesser building blocks wouldn't be capable of doing that

I don't mean to say that anyone is saying there has to be a god in terms of, some being that inspires prophets to write books and so on.

The only requisite for something's being is the act of being. If you ask "Why do we exist?" the only surefire answer is "Because we are." I am being, because I am. There's no requirement for something to come into existence for it to exist. That's a different verb.

That's not to say it's impossible to come into existence, just that it's not required to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

I guess I just find it difficult to understand how people assume:
1) Something can't come from nothing
2) Something must have been created by a creator, who in turn created the universe
3) If we call this creator god, then there's no need to question where this creator came from and it's ok for him/her/it to come from nothing
4) Problem/Paradox solved

I understand the first platitude, but you guys start to lose me on the ensuing steps


**Not trying to encite you KK, just wondering why you find it more plausible for a being with creative powers to come from nothing but lesser building blocks wouldn't be capable of doing that

---

I don't think that scientific forces can come from nothing. Obviously it's just an assumption since I am not an expert on every scientific force in the world, but given the fact that humans have the capability of learning about so many types of scientific forces/happenings and haven't found any that have evolved out of pure nothingness, I think it's possible that they can't.

I don't think a creator created everything about the universe. I think there is some type of creator that set in motion the very first scientific force. From that point on, I have no idea what happens next or why...I just don't think a scientific force could've been created out of pure nothingness.

I think this so called created operates beyond human comprehension. In the history of mankind, we have shown the ability to learn about and control so many scientific forces. We haven't learned one thing definitively about any type of god, in any sense of the word.



It comes down to this. I think humans, in time, have the ability to learn about and understand every type of scientific force possible. I don't think they have the ability to ever understand one thing about any type of god. Based on what we know and can know, I think it's safe to say that a scientific force can't create itself. Given that we haven't learned anything about a god, in any sense of the world, I think it could be possible that a god could create itself.


Of course it's all just my opinion. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or anything...there's no way to know what is wrong or right.

I love how Cardinals like this make us look stupid

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acetoolguy

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

---

well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

I'm not really sure if I see the point of this thread. A Cardinal doesn't like atheists. NO WAY. He wants to define human in a spiritual rather than biologic sense. Who cares?

---

It's so wonderful that you can say who cares. There was a time you would of been killed for that, we can never let religion get the influence it once had. It would be a disaster. So i'll join, I could care less what the cardinal says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acetoolguy

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

---

perhaps....love it. perhaps we are all a bit "closed minded" on these issues.:eek:

I think, by nature, theological concepts, or rather, gods, are not understandable by humans. Isn't that sort of the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I think, by nature, theological concepts, or rather, gods, are not understandable by humans. Isn't that sort of the point?

---

yup....the thought is supposed to be, that we can not fathom what a god, or gods can comprehend. They are apparently all mighty and all powerful...so how are we supposed to know the answer? we aren't. thus why a debate on religion usually doesn't bode this forum too well.

I won't go as far as to say things were never "set in force," but it doesn't follow from sound logic that things were ever "set in force." The same notion that says to you "How could something come from nothing?" should suggest to you, "Everything always was and always will be."

It's a function of our mind to assume that things were set in force. We see cause and effect. We, especially as people of the western world, see things rather pragmatically. We assume that there must have been a birth, since there is a person. And there, we are correct. We assume that somebody locked a door if it is locked. There, we are probably correct. We assume that somebody used the last of the toothpaste, since there is no more. There, we are again, probably correct.

These are instances that we know, from experience and learning, have been caused somehow. We see so many causes, that we assume all effects have causes. We therefore assume that, since there is a universe, since there is matter, since there is action and thought and time, that there was something to make it all happen and exist. We ask questions like "If there was a Big Bang, what was around before that event?" and "If there was a creator, or a force that created, what were things like before that creator/force? Who created/forced it?" We don't realize that, given the knowledge provided in the questions and their contexts, and the nature of the questions, there doesn't need to be an answer, and there probably isn't.

The universe isn't the same as the trivialities of your daily life. There is no visible or verifiable cause/effect, and there doesn't have to be one. There is not, inherently, a "starting point" or a "first being" or "first force." It's difficult to fathom, because it's difficult to not want to see ALL things as traveling on a two-dimensional time line. We assume everything is on a two-dimensional time line, and we ask questions about what came before whatever it was that came before what is.

These are the reasons God was "created" in the first place.

Things are, and that's all that matters. This is the best answer, by far, that's ever been provided to these questions. From Plato to quantum mechanics. What is, is, because it is, and only because it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

I won't go as far as to say things were never "set in force," but it doesn't follow from sound logic that things were ever "set in force." The same notion that says to you "How could something come from nothing?" should suggest to you, "Everything always was and always will be."

It's a function of our mind to assume that things were set in force. We see cause and effect. We, especially as people of the western world, see things rather pragmatically. We assume that there must have been a birth, since there is a person. And there, we are correct. We assume that somebody locked a door if it is locked. There, we are probably correct. We assume that somebody used the last of the toothpaste, since there is no more. There, we are again, probably correct.

These are instances that we know, from experience and learning, have been caused somehow. We see so many causes, that we assume all effects have causes. We therefore assume that, since there is a universe, since there is matter, since there is action and thought and time, that there was something to make it all happen and exist. We ask questions like "If there was a Big Bang, what was around before that event?" and "If there was a creator, or a force that created, what were things like before that creator/force? Who created/forced it?" We don't realize that, given the knowledge provided in the questions and their contexts, and the nature of the questions, there doesn't need to be an answer, and there probably isn't.

The universe isn't the same as the trivialities of your daily life. There is no visible or verifiable cause/effect, and there doesn't have to be one. There is not, inherently, a "starting point" or a "first being" or "first force." It's difficult to fathom, because it's difficult to not want to see ALL things as traveling on a two-dimensional time line. We assume everything is on a two-dimensional time line, and we ask questions about what came before whatever it was that came before what is.

These are the reasons God was "created" in the first place.

Things are, and that's all that matters. This is the best answer, by far, that's ever been provided to these questions. From Plato to quantum mechanics. What is, is, because it is, and only because it is.

---

uh, doesn't it "depend on what the meaning of the word is, is?" :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

uh, doesn't it "depend on what the meaning of the word is, is?" :p

---

I couldn't help but thinking of that when i typed it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

I couldn't help but thinking of that when i typed it. :)

---

Regardless of viewpoints on Clinton, that statement alone baffles me everytime it crosses my mind. That a sitting president, heck even a former president, would make such a statement remains one of the most shocking things i've ever heard from someone in a position of authority.

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

---

No, it was "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." that Clinton said during his grand jury testimony on the Lewinsky affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

---

that is a lil extreme yes, but we were founded as one nation under God. Do atheist stand against the pledge or allegiance now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

---

wow, you really are clueless on this issue eh? try this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

and your link doesn't seem to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

No, it was "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." that Clinton said during his grand jury testimony on the Lewinsky affair.

---

Ah, okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

that is a lil extreme yes, but we were founded as one nation under God. Do atheist stand against the pledge or allegiance now?

---

We were also founded as a nation in which religion and government were separate. And, yes, a lot of atheists do have a problem the the "under God" bit in the pledge, which, by the way, was ADDED to the pledge about 50 years after it was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

wow, you really are clueless on this issue eh? try this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

and your link doesn't seem to work.

---

No, I wasn't clueless on it. I've heard that/seen that before. I just didn't put two and two together when I was reading the thread.

And the link works fine for me. It's to a post earlier in the thread.

lmfao...while lookin up the famous, is/is quote.....i found this you tube clip of Clinton. I don't recall seeing htis in the past, awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpEckWHSvXk&NR=1

imagine if this were bush or a republican sleeping????

And here's the "is is" quote we just mentioned.

And the longer clip of it, although much worse quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

that is a lil extreme yes, but we were founded as one nation under God. Do atheist stand against the pledge or allegiance now?

---

"...under God" was added to the Pledge after the fact. Try saying it without. You'll notice the cadence makes a lot more sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

that is a lil extreme yes, but we were founded as one nation under God.

---

I direct you to the quote in my signature from the Treaty of Tripoli. ;)

Quote:

---

Do atheist stand against the pledge or allegiance now?

---

My senior year in high school, my friend and I had our first class together, and every morning during the Pledge of Allegiance, we sat. After the first few times, our teacher asked up to stand. We told her no, that we had a constitutional right to sit. She sent us to the principle, who told us that failure to obey a teacher could get us suspended.

Luckily, we figured this might happen, so we handed him a copy of the Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

The look on his face was priceless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirKodiak

One concept I have read about this has to do with dimensions. Everything we physically interact with is three dimensional, but we live in four dimensional spacetime (three physical dimensions + time). A being that was actually four dimensional would not fall within the constraints imposed by being 3d in a 4d world, like having a beginning or ending as we understand it. I originally got interested in this type of thought after reading a book that explored physics of 2d world in a 3d spacetime.

---

A really good post that was overlooked.

Actually, time is more likely the 8th or 9th dimension with the 4th through 7th or 8th dimensions being spatial dimensions that are small and coiled inside the 3 dimensions that we are familiar with.

It is possible that our 'universe' came from another higher dimensional universe. Instead of 'a being that was actually four dimensional' not falling 'within the constraints' of our local set of physical laws it could be that time flows through our universe and doesn't begin (nor end?) with what we are physically able to observe

Recommended reading:
Stephen Hawing - The Universe in a Nutshell
Michael Talbot - The Holographic Universe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

that is a lil extreme yes, but we were founded as one nation under God. Do atheist stand against the pledge or allegiance now?

---

Yes. As an atheist I stand (sometimes sit) against the pledge of allegiance. But not because I'm an atheist. If I just objected to the 'under gods' part I'd just leave that out.

I don't stand for the Pledge because I have no reason to give allegiance to a country I completely disagree with. And the God part.

I always stood for it, just because it's a word (and nothing more) to me. So for somebody like myself that doesn't believe in "God", saying his name shouldn't be like garlic to a vampire. But those are just my personal feelings on the matter. I had no need to stand out and "make a statement", which would likely make little difference anyway, aside from bringing unnecessary attention upon myself and my family.

I can play the "devil in disguise" very well, thank you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

I always stood for it, just because it's a word (and nothing more) to me. So for somebody like myself that doesn't believe in "God", saying his name shouldn't be like garlic to a vampire. But those are just my personal feelings on the matter. I had no need to stand out and "make a statement", which would likely make little difference anyway, aside from bringing unnecessary attention upon myself and my family.

I can play the "devil in disguise" very well, thank you. ;)

---

and mine as well

I omitted to UG part, once I got the courage. I was the only one doing it. But I still said the rest of the pledge...without really knowing why, but oh well.

We already had a whole (locked) discussion on the pledge already, found here: http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthr...dge+allegiance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

So for somebody like myself that doesn't believe in "God", saying his name shouldn't be like garlic to a vampire.

---

I totally agree. I'm completely agnostic, but I have never understood why people are so offended by God. And if anyone should be offended by God, it's me, having grown up in an ultra-ultra-ultra conservative and mega-triple-ultra religious town where my family was practically the only family that didn't kneel down to the local religion.

Even the idea of public prayer does not bug me, unless, of course, people are being forced to pray.

I'm of the opinion that it takes a weak will and an even weaker mind to be offended by something one doesn't believe in or agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

I'm of the opinion that it takes a weak will and an even weaker mind to be offended by something one doesn't believe in or agree with.

---

Perfectly stated. It's just a word, and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

I totally agree. I'm completely agnostic, but I have never understood why people are so offended by God. And if anyone should be offended by God, it's me, having grown up in an ultra-ultra-ultra conservative and mega-triple-ultra religious town where my family was practically the only family that didn't kneel down to the local religion.

Even the idea of public prayer does not bug me, unless, of course, people are being forced to pray.

I'm of the opinion that it takes a weak will and an even weaker mind to be offended by something one doesn't believe in or agree with.

---

I am not offended by it, I just don't want to pledge myself to anything.

http://www.motifake.com/demotivation...1217883916.jpg

You should add about 10 more cards in your signature, TNP. There aren't enough.

Over/Under on how many ABs between all of TNP's players until one of them gets a hit?

I'd be willing to go as high 20

I think a bug will shut down the website before he gets to 16. Or he'll get bored with it, realize he can do the same thing with Baseball Mogul, and quit by then.