It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask An Atheist Anything

page: 29
25
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheKnave
I tried Athiesm for several years and realized there is as much evidence for "no god" as there is for "a god". So I became a spiritual agnostic, I accept the fact there might be a god or divine entity at the same time there might not be. Ultimatly there is no way to empiricaly proove it 100%


One does not need proof that there is no god, one needs proof that there is a god. The default position of any rational individual would be disbelief until shown otherwise.


God by defintion has to be a paradox because it has to exsist outside of accepted reality, IF it created it. And because this paradox exsists I believe its fairly credible evidence (in a purely philisophical way) of the exsistence of "something".


A logical paradox doesn't prove evidence of anything, and your paradox relies on assumptions that 1. a deity must live outside of accepted reality and 2. the possibility it created reality. The problem really lies in invoking a deity as a "creator". If a "creator" is required and a deity is invoked to explain it then you haven't answered anything, only complicated things. Because the deity which creates also must have been created and then that creator must have been created and so on. You force an infinite regression.

Ultimately what is required for the confirmation of the existence of deities is objective, testable evidence.


Your assumptions about a deity which creates also must have been created is flawed when it comes to quantum mechanics. It is possible that the creator is made of pure intelligent energy, and since energy can't be created or destroyed, but only change molecular structure (First Law of Thermodynamics-Law of Conservation of Energy), means the creator has always been and always be.

Also, your concept of creator seems to be structured within a time format, which time is an illusion for the purpose of being in the 3rd dimension. Outside the 3rd dimension time does not exist. Time was created by the Big Bang to create a "here and a there" to form the illusion of time of getting from a "here to a there". [ Quote from rebelscience.org says it best: "People often talk about the passage of time. They say that time flows or changes. However, logically speaking, it is a fallacy that time changes. Clocks change, physical processes change but time is invariant. Why? Because, again, 'changing time' is self-referential. The truth is that nobody has ever observed time changing. We only use the changes in our clocks to derive unchanging time intervals."]

Since a creator doesn't live in our 3rd dimensional realm, applying 3rd dimensional laws of physics to the creator is illogical.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by ptmckiou]




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The problem really lies in invoking a deity as a "creator". If a "creator" is required and a deity is invoked to explain it then you haven't answered anything, only complicated things. Because the deity which creates also must have been created and then that creator must have been created and so on. You force an infinite regression.


I agree with the first part, that assuming God just for the sake of answering where did this come from, complicates things by adding another variable for no reason, I don't agree with the second -- whatever your explanation of the origin of the Universe might be ("it always existed", "it didn't always exist, but it just popped into existence at some point" or whatever) can be applied just as correctly to God. I don't believe in God because I need to know where the Universe came from, I don't really care where it came from, so I'm okay with the extra level of complication.

On another point, I would bet dollars to donuts that the guy who made the original statement that you are arguing about with your "blind acceptance" discussion meant that we should be "accepting OF other's beliefs", as in tolerant, not that you should change your mind every time you hear something, which makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Your assumptions about a deity which creates also must have been created is flawed when it comes to quantum mechanics. It is possible that the creator is made of pure intelligent energy, and since energy can't be created or destroyed, but only change molecular structure (First Law of Thermodynamics-Law of Conservation of Energy), means the creator has always been and always be.


Sure, if we pretend that a mysterious subject allows us to invent more things about the deities we wish to believe in. Let's explore your proposition. If god is pure energy, and energy and matter are essentially the same (Theory Of Relativity), where is this god? Both energy and matter are detectable, yet this god-that-only-exists-because-we-don't-understand-quantum-mechanics-fully evades all inquiries as to it's existence.


Also, your concept of creator seems to be structured within a time format, which time is an illusion for the purpose of being in the 3rd dimension. Outside the 3rd dimension time does not exist. Time was created by the Big Bang to create a "here and a there" to form the illusion of time of getting from a "here to a there". A creator doesn't live in our 3rd dimensional realm, so applying 3rd dimensional laws of physics to the creator is illogical.


I have no concept of a creator whatsoever, that was another poster's proposition, and I said nothing of a time format. What gives you the impression that time doesn't exist outside of the third dimension, or that some creator doesn't live in a 3D realm, or that applying the laws of physics is illogical? Additionally, you reference a "creator" and therefore still remain subject to the previously-referenced infinite regression fallacy.

How are the things that you invent about the nature of your god any more valid or accurate than the things someone else invents about the nature of their god? It seems to me you're simply employing the old "god of the gaps" technique of placing the deity into areas currently beyond the frontiers of human knowledge.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I agree with the first part, that assuming God just for the sake of answering where did this come from, complicates things by adding another variable for no reason, I don't agree with the second -- whatever your explanation of the origin of the Universe might be ("it always existed", "it didn't always exist, but it just popped into existence at some point" or whatever) can be applied just as correctly to God. I don't believe in God because I need to know where the Universe came from, I don't really care where it came from, so I'm okay with the extra level of complication.


Well, in that case it should be possible that your deity should not be required to also be a "creator". That would be a unique viewpoint as most people invoke a deity as being the creator of the universe, mankind included. Requiring a creator of the universe though indeed creates infinite regression when invoking a deity as the cause.


On another point, I would bet dollars to donuts that the guy who made the original statement that you are arguing about with your "blind acceptance" discussion meant that we should be "accepting OF other's beliefs", as in tolerant, not that you should change your mind every time you hear something, which makes no sense.


I suspect he did mean tolerant and after explaining my response to that post to death, I wish he/she would have used that word.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
I agree with the first part, that assuming God just for the sake of answering where did this come from, complicates things by adding another variable for no reason, I don't agree with the second -- whatever your explanation of the origin of the Universe might be ("it always existed", "it didn't always exist, but it just popped into existence at some point" or whatever) can be applied just as correctly to God. I don't believe in God because I need to know where the Universe came from, I don't really care where it came from, so I'm okay with the extra level of complication.


Well, in that case it should be possible that your deity should not be required to also be a "creator". That would be a unique viewpoint as most people invoke a deity as being the creator of the universe, mankind included. Requiring a creator of the universe though indeed creates infinite regression when invoking a deity as the cause.


I suppose that it's possible to make that statement, but that's not what I believe.

Do you have a belief on the origins of the Universe? Where the energy that became everything in the Big Bang came from? I think that we're both on board with the Big Bang end of it, but where that energy came from is another matter. It was either created, which forces what you view as an infinite regression, or it has always existed, which is effectively what we believe about God, which allows for a non-infinite regression. But maybe there's a third option you've come across that I haven't.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
If you think superstition isn't pejorative, then you really do need a new dictionary.


Thinking for yourself employs reasoning, which is not the blind acceptance I referred to earlier.

Well, now we're making progress.

Not a yes-or-no answer to my yes-or-no question (what a surprise), but I am assuming by the above quote that you now accept that my (hypothetical) decision to join the Society of Friends is uncrazy, and for the same reasons as my williness to bet on the Lakers is uncrazy.

So, your choice, unless you'd prefer me to lead. We can explore variations on the decision to join the Society of Friends, or you could offer a clearer definition of blind acceptance, which (I think) is the same thing as simple acceptance.

Over to you.


I have answered your questions categorically and repeatedly. I'm simply not interested in entertaining every change in variables and context that you apply to my statements. As long as you continue doing so I suspect you won't receive the answer you seem to desire.

The reason why you refuse to answer the question is because there is no rational relationship between anything's ontological status and your inability to figure out a use for it.


That sounds somewhat to me like the requirement to prove a negative. I cannot tell you how to go about doing such a thing.

I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked you to explain its relevance.

So far, you have danced.


Though honestly, I'm not certain exactly what you're trying to ask here anyway, but in short one could likely infer the non-existence of something due to the lack of evidence in support of the existence of said "something".

Is it your view, then, that there is general validity to the heuristic "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?"

Not that that has anything to do with whether something has a function, nor what inferences can be drawn from your ianbility to discern a function. But maybe you'll answer this question.


Excellent. Then your default position is disbelief until shown otherwise.

Of course it's excellent. However, if you wish to apply disbelief to my default position, then one of the things I "disbelieve" is There is no god.

I sense that strikes you as less excellent.


What is a "silly claim"? That I disagree with some reasonable people you know? That's not a claim, and I have no interest in conforming with the opinions of the reasonable people you know

No, the silly claim of yours which I was discussing in that post was the one I quoted right above my discussion of it, like so:



One does not need proof that there is no god, one needs proof that there is a god. The default position of any rational individual would be disbelief until shown otherwise.


Why? I think I'm a rational person. I don't have a "default position. " I just say "I don't know the answer to the question."

Anybody who wants me to change me mind, and agree with them instead of somebody else, had better show me some proof.

You get bupkis just because you disagree with the vast majority of reasonable people I know personally. Truly a silly claim.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
OK, Im pretty sure at this point the OP is God, and he's just testing us.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
No, the silly claim of yours which I was discussing in that post was the one I quoted right above my discussion of it, like so:


One does not need proof that there is no god, one needs proof that there is a god. The default position of any rational individual would be disbelief until shown otherwise.



This is not a silly claim in any way, that is, if we remain in the context of my response. Disbelief of extraordinary claims is indeed a default position, whether the extraordinary claim be the existence of unicorns, dragons or deities.

While you may reckon yourself a rational individual you're calling doubt to that self-proclamation by the constant shifting of context and subjects of multiple topics and statements in an attempt to pigeonhole people's positions or allow yourself passes on the concepts you've been challenged on. The constant moving of the goalposts is less than rational and, in fact, a bit immature and tedious. I shall refrain from yet again answering another re-wording of the same question.

I will be more than happy to entertain any questions you have that are actually genuine and based on proper context and subject. However, your conspicuous desire for an argumentative victory and the constant rephrasing of questions and context shifting is not something I'm interested in participating in. Have a fantastic day, sir.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamwalker74
 


lol! I suspect that God would have a lot less difficulty in disproving himself. I suppose that faulty reasoning could be publicly aired to discredit something, but I think that, with a few exceptions, the OP has demonstrated that he has a reasonable platform from which to defend his belief.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I suppose that it's possible to make that statement, but that's not what I believe.

Do you have a belief on the origins of the Universe? Where the energy that became everything in the Big Bang came from? I think that we're both on board with the Big Bang end of it, but where that energy came from is another matter. It was either created, which forces what you view as an infinite regression, or it has always existed, which is effectively what we believe about God, which allows for a non-infinite regression. But maybe there's a third option you've come across that I haven't.


I am content with not knowing what caused the Big Bang for now. My default position on the matter is rooted in Methodological Naturalism, a.k.a., no miracles/creators required. I could very well be proven wrong one day but nothing about the Big Bang seems to require a creator in terms of a supernatural being.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
I suppose that it's possible to make that statement, but that's not what I believe.

Do you have a belief on the origins of the Universe? Where the energy that became everything in the Big Bang came from? I think that we're both on board with the Big Bang end of it, but where that energy came from is another matter. It was either created, which forces what you view as an infinite regression, or it has always existed, which is effectively what we believe about God, which allows for a non-infinite regression. But maybe there's a third option you've come across that I haven't.


I am content with not knowing what caused the Big Bang for now. My default position on the matter is rooted in Methodological Naturalism, a.k.a., no miracles/creators required. I could very well be proven wrong one day but nothing about the Big Bang seems to require a creator in terms of a supernatural being.


Well, I'm not really asking whether you think it requires a creator, I'm trying to sort out the logic that says if God did it, it requires infinite regression. Maybe if I break it out, you'll see what I mean.

Option A: The energy was created at some point, source unknown

This option requires your infinite regression, as regardless of what it was that created it, that thing then needs a source, and so on.

Option B: The energy has always existed

This option obviates infinite regression, because nothing created the energy. How that works, meh, not really relevant and most likely beyond our understanding.

Now, if you're okay with those two options, I merely point out that the "creator" theistic belief is that God is option B. Wasn't created, has just always been there. Again, beyond our understanding.

If you accept that option B is a valid choice for the Universe, you have to accept it as a valid choice for God, as well (whether he exists or not.) I again go back to my point yesterday about "cherry picking" evidence to support what you want the outcome to be.

If you discard option B and go with option A, then claims about infinite regression being problematic with God are fruitless.

Like I said, though, there may well be an Option C that I'm just not aware of.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Option A: The energy was created at some point, source unknown

This option requires your infinite regression, as regardless of what it was that created it, that thing then needs a source, and so on.

Option B: The energy has always existed

This option obviates infinite regression, because nothing created the energy. How that works, meh, not really relevant and most likely beyond our understanding.

Now, if you're okay with those two options, I merely point out that the "creator" theistic belief is that God is option B. Wasn't created, has just always been there. Again, beyond our understanding.


I think you and I both agree that option B negates the need for any sort of a creator. Without a creator, no infinite regression. But again, very few theists hold a position that requires no creator of the universe and the things in it and this position would be very unique.

This also brings up the possibility that with option B, there is no requirement for any deity to be involved with anything at all. If we're reckoning a god or deity to be the eternally-existing energy are we not just calling a rose by another name?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Option A: The energy was created at some point, source unknown

This option requires your infinite regression, as regardless of what it was that created it, that thing then needs a source, and so on.

Option B: The energy has always existed

This option obviates infinite regression, because nothing created the energy. How that works, meh, not really relevant and most likely beyond our understanding.

Now, if you're okay with those two options, I merely point out that the "creator" theistic belief is that God is option B. Wasn't created, has just always been there. Again, beyond our understanding.


I think you and I both agree that option B negates the need for any sort of a creator. Without a creator, no infinite regression. But again, very few theists hold a position that requires no creator of the universe and the things in it and this position would be very unique.

This also brings up the possibility that with option B, there is no requirement for any deity to be involved with anything at all. If we're reckoning a god or deity to be the eternally-existing energy are we not just calling a rose by another name?


Again, you are misconstruing my point. You stated that God could not have created the Universe, because it creates a state of infinite regression. Option B, as you say, negates the need for a creator. You seem to lean toward that option, as do I. Accepting this option accepts the notion of eternity -- something that is always in existence, that has always been in existence, will always be in existence.

The key difference, though, is that, when we bring God into the equation, which I do for reasons that have nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, the theist believes that God is option B, the Universe is option A. God, not the Universe, has existed eternally and will exist eternally, and created the energy that became the Big Bang.

This does not prove the existence of God, of course, but it logically makes a point of refutation of your infinite regression, because there is only the one regression -- option A converts to option B and the cycle ends.

While there are belief systems out there that would concur with your eternally-existing energy being a deity postulation, mainstream Christianity is not one of them. God is not the Universe, he exists outside of it. He might simply be energy (I've never put much stock in the "old guy with a white beard" motif,) but that's still beyond our understanding.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Your assumptions about a deity which creates also must have been created is flawed when it comes to quantum mechanics. It is possible that the creator is made of pure intelligent energy, and since energy can't be created or destroyed, but only change molecular structure (First Law of Thermodynamics-Law of Conservation of Energy), means the creator has always been and always be.


Sure, if we pretend that a mysterious subject allows us to invent more things about the deities we wish to believe in. Let's explore your proposition. If god is pure energy, and energy and matter are essentially the same (Theory Of Relativity), where is this god? Both energy and matter are detectable, yet this god-that-only-exists-because-we-don't-understand-quantum-mechanics-fully evades all inquiries as to it's existence.


Also, your concept of creator seems to be structured within a time format, which time is an illusion for the purpose of being in the 3rd dimension. Outside the 3rd dimension time does not exist. Time was created by the Big Bang to create a "here and a there" to form the illusion of time of getting from a "here to a there". A creator doesn't live in our 3rd dimensional realm, so applying 3rd dimensional laws of physics to the creator is illogical.


I have no concept of a creator whatsoever, that was another poster's proposition, and I said nothing of a time format. What gives you the impression that time doesn't exist outside of the third dimension, or that some creator doesn't live in a 3D realm, or that applying the laws of physics is illogical? Additionally, you reference a "creator" and therefore still remain subject to the previously-referenced infinite regression fallacy.

How are the things that you invent about the nature of your god any more valid or accurate than the things someone else invents about the nature of their god? It seems to me you're simply employing the old "god of the gaps" technique of placing the deity into areas currently beyond the frontiers of human knowledge.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]


Where is this intelligent energy? Up until this point, with our infinitely small concept of quantum physics, God has evaded our detection. However, we really know nothing of quantum physics and have just started to learn. In theory, however, if god is an intelligent energy then everything you see, hear, taste, and feel is God, because all those things are made of "him"...energy. Collectively, there is nothing that exists except God....energy. An amusing aspect of this theory is that we are looking for ourselves. HA! The theory has God as the THEE INTELLIGENT ENERGY that was the BIG BANG. God...subdivided "himself" to create time..and all the illusions that go with it's creation.

The way I presently look at science is that most of it is built on a house of cards and much of it can't be trusted fully, because at it's most root base component...the quantum world of which everything is made from...is not understood. The quantum world has physicists completely baffled and when you can't explain that of which we are made from.....you really know nothing. So, I certainly don't look to science as "proof" of anything. As soon as we think we get one thing right, we find out we only knew part of the story. I think this is also why I'm baffled by anyone who says they are an atheist. It says to me they think science knows everything, when really science knows little of our universe and how it works. At the very least, from this perspective I would think people would be agnostic instead, leaving the door open to new data that they don't discount the possibility that there could be a higher intelligent power in the universe and that we are just too infantile in our technology at this point to detect that intelligent energy.





[edit on 21-7-2010 by ptmckiou]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

This is not a silly claim in any way, that is, if we remain in the context of my response. Disbelief of extraordinary claims is indeed a default position, whether the extraordinary claim be the existence of unicorns, dragons or deities.

What is or is not "extraordinary" is a judgment call. Some rational people will find something ordinary that other rational people will find extraordinary.

In a dichotomous judgment, a rational person may feel that neither option is "extraordinary," or that both are.

The scope of your claim was "any rational individual." So, what is above in the quote box doesn't help you. Ordinariness is something about which rational people may differ.

There is nothing about the context of your remark that modifies its claimed scope, "any rational individual," a statement of scope which you made in plain words, a phrase whose meaning offers no ambiguity for its context to resolve or modify.


While you may reckon yourself a rational individual you're calling doubt to that self-proclamation by the constant shifting of context and subjects of multiple topics and statements in an attempt to pigeonhole people's positions or allow yourself passes on the concepts you've been challenged on. The constant moving of the goalposts is less than rational and, in fact, a bit immature and tedious. I shall refrain from yet again answering another re-wording of the same question.

Yet again? Lol, you never answered it.

As to the rest, my root questions concern religion. If along the way, in answer to my posts or the posts of others, you bring up other issues, like mental health, or principles of inference, then I follow your lead.

If you didn't want to discuss mental health, then why did you bring it up? It will go faster if I answer that one. You brought it up to call some of those who disagree with you, about a matter of opinion, mentally ill. Calling them mentally ill was easier than offering a rational argument.

Be that as it may, having left at it "some," and not all, would not a reasonable follow-up question be who is healthy and who is not, in your view? Or what standards do you apply when making your accusation?

Smarter play might have been to avoid the ad hom in the first place. You could still retract the comment, too. Then there'd be no reason to ask you about whom you are describing.

But as it stands, you brought it up, and your position is not self-explanatory. So, you have been asked to explain it, in a thread which you started, which invites your readers to ask you anything.

Are you going to explain the standards by which you call someone crazy, or aren't you?


Have a fantastic day, sir.

Why thank you, TD. And you, too, fellow member.

Preview of coming attractions: if I understand your objection to my sports domain example, then you seem to want to argue that questions involving religious subjects ought to be decided by different principles than secular subjects. That is a very interesting position, and one that I look forward to asking you about, once we've got a handle on who is crazy, in your view.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Where is this intelligent energy? Up until this point, with our infinitely small concept of quantum physics, God has evaded our detection. However, we really know nothing of quantum physics and have just started to learn. In theory, however, if god is an intelligent energy then everything you see, hear, taste, and feel is God, because all those things are made of "him"...energy. Collectively, there is nothing that exists except God....energy. An amusing aspect of this theory is that we are looking for ourselves. HA! The theory has God as the THEE INTELLIGENT ENERGY that was the BIG BANG. God...subdivided "himself" to create time..and all the illusions that go with it's creation.

The way I presently look at science is that most of it is built on a house of cards and much of it can't be trusted fully, because at it's most root base component...the quantum world of which everything is made from...is not understood. The quantum world has physicists completely baffled and when you can't explain that of which we are made from.....you really know nothing. So, I certainly don't look to science as "proof" of anything. As soon as we think we get one thing right, we find out we only knew part of the story.


Once again, how does your inventing things about the nature of your god any more valid than the things someone else invents about their god? And even yet again, how is this not a redeployment of the "god of the gaps" game in which you simply force your god into the domains beyond the frontiers of human knowledge?



I think this is also why I'm baffled by anyone who says they are an atheist. It says to me they think science knows everything, when really science knows little of our universe and how it works. At the very least, from this perspective I would think people would be agnostic instead, leaving the door open to new data that they don't discount the possibility that there could be a higher intelligent power in the universe and that we are just too infantile in our technology at this point to detect that intelligent energy.


I know of no atheist nor anybody at all who believes that "science knows everything". As I've stated before I personally believe agnosticism to be the least logical stand on this issue. There is so little evidence favoring the existence of a deity (no evidence at all actually) that refusal to form a certitude on the lack of evidence is irrational and illogical. There exists as much evidence confirming the existence of deities as there is the existence of dragons, fairies or goblins and everyone has formed the certitude that there are no dragons, fairies or goblins. By your logic, dragons, fairies and goblins may all reside within the world of quantum physics. Few would accept that proposition and it shouldn't be expected that anyone should accept that deities reside there either.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

The key difference, though, is that, when we bring God into the equation, which I do for reasons that have nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, the theist believes that God is option B, the Universe is option A. God, not the Universe, has existed eternally and will exist eternally, and created the energy that became the Big Bang.


Again, you're still requiring creation as part of the formula. I am still forced to ask who created the creator.

If we reckon the universe will exist eternally and has existed infinitely there is no need for anything to have been created at all. Invoking a creation/creator of any kind only introduces an unending recursion.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here is my question. Why do atheists turn to God when everything seems hopeless? My father prayed to every God he had ever heard of when his boat was sinking in a storm.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Why thank you, TD.


You're welcome.

As I said, I'm not going to continue to redundantly answer the same question repeatedly. If you cannot interpret my answer after responding to your various permutations of the same question multiple times I suspect you may never do so.

And even yet again, the not so subtle jabs, shifting of context, redefinition of words, paraphrasing, insinuations, moving the goalposts, tedious nitpicking and conspicuous goading is not something in which I wish to participate. If you choose to engage in coherent, respectful discourse I'll be glad to discuss things with you. Until then, good luck to you, sir.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Here is my question. Why do atheists turn to God when everything seems hopeless? My father prayed to every God he had ever heard of when his boat was sinking in a storm.


Most likely because when the situation is dire a human being will attempt any bargain to reverse the physical laws which are leading to apparent disaster. It's likely when I am on the verge of death I'll look for a similar bargain.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join