Atheist Zealot

Post Reply New Topic

Bertrand Russell used to have friendly drinks with GK Chesterton.

My religious beliefs =

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

Your interpretation of my statement is flawed. A claim "X exists" is a matter of facts. Either X exists, or X doesn't exist. However, "you should eat chicken" has no factual content. It can neither really be true or false, except in certain very specific circumstances, like "You should eat chicken if you want to cut down on your red-meat intake" can be construed as factual. (Eating chicken instead of beef reduces red-meat intake)

I don't mind trying to enlighten you to stop believing in God. I just don't think it will "expand my mind" in any way shape or form(frankly, I would actually expect you to be a bit slow and annoy me for that reason), so I am not going to put a lot of effort up into it. Here, have this:

1) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
2) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
3) Therefore, a world created by a perfectly good omnipotent being will be the best of all possible worlds.
4) This is not the best of all possible worlds.
5) Therefore this world is not made by a perfectly good omnipotent being.
6) If God exists, then he is the maker of this world and a perfectly good omnipotent being.
7) Therefore God does not exist.

Also, if you are Christian, just watch this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/misterdeity#p/u/21/7Ksa5FNQLrA[/youtube] (Note: If you are like me and dislike videos, I can provide something else. The sole point of this video is to show that Christian theology tends to either lose internal coherence, or coherence with the external world.)

Note: I am not saying "IF YOU LOOK AT THIS STUFF THEN YOU MUST BECOME AN ATHEIST", but these are considerations that would rationally impact people on the plausibility of a worldview, and whether or not that worldview is true or false.

I don't know what you mean by "understand mysticism".

Atheists do not believe in mysticism.

Atheists believe that mystics are really just being fooled by a brain glitch.

I don't see why this atheist view is silly.

Awesome, Awesome, he said, ever so graciously waving his tail. The video could I watch it but I not only dislike videos but cannot effectively receive them may have a point. Certainly many talking up what they see as Christianity DO lose coherence though I am by no means convinced it is inevitable for all theological stances

But your so lovely and overused sylogism GIGOs on its face with ungrounded assumptions.

Never mind that we do not KNOW that a perfectly good omnipotent beingalways chooses the best possible outcome. We cannot know that, of course - we either have or have not access to precisely ONE perfectly good omnipotent being and we know precisely ONE universe that was or was not created by him, which is hardly enough to establish a track record.

Never mind, I say, because IF he is and IF he did and IF Genesis has its source in him, he tells us that this universe is really pretty good. Not a guarantee it is the best possible, but close enough to indicate a good universe is his goal.

But PLEASE - I know you can think besser:

"4) This is not the best of all possible worlds.

Really. You must be pretty good. I have barely explored a fee corners of this little dust speack in the for us actualized universe.

But YOU - it must be true or you would not say that - have examine if not all still an externsive range of possible universes and found some that by - what criteria exactly? - are better than here.

You cannot simply say "If I were Peter Jackson the Lord of the Rings movies would be better; if I wee God this would be a better world."

The only possible criteria for world quality are A. the designer's goals - to which we do not have direct access, but we do have him saying, after seeing all the world's warts and wrinkles ,"Not at all bad!".

Or B., the effect on the consumers, namely us, which by the Solon to Croesus judge no man happy principle is NOT available since we will not have the outcome until the END.

Sure, you can get most humans to gripe about their condition - but that is really not to the point.

Pretty sore at the moment as I just had wisdom teeth removed. But there is no such thing as a best of all possible world. The underachiever problem is dead. Also you second and third premises are the same one... Three is just a case for two. Six and seven are superfluous as five is your conclusion. You cannot define a best of all possible worlds because you don't know this world's purpose.

The second premise falls apart because you are actually just stating that God must always chose a better world. This continues towards infinity. So in essence you are requiring God to do what cannot be done. The problem revealed is that there is not best world, since there is no optimum choice, we must therefor be in a sub-optimum one. So you just transfer a logical contradiction into your argument, but really has nothing to do with God. You just want god to have to build the rock so heavy he cant lift it. Essentially, the world so good not even he could make it or could never finish making it. It's just the principle of explosion. Al that would actually be required is a morally adequate world with relation to it's purpose.

It is a public forum. Contrary to popular belief, the world does not orbit around your ego. More so, my view is not atheism, because I believe in something like a god. But I find the notion of people that get offended by the idea of people sharing their dissonant beliefs quite ridiculous.

The forum is called Religion, Politics and philosophy.

You have serious entitlement issues if you think that pointing out your beliefs in a forum intended to be about that is zealotry. More so, your concept of "zealot" is quite stupid and outside reality. A religious zealot is a guy that crashes into buildings or tries to ruin science education for everyone else. Not a guy pointing out his beliefs.




Nobody is. You are free to believe in fairies. That doesn't make your belief any less false.


Just because you believe in fairies it doesn't entitle you to make people stop saying that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the belief of fairies and that they are very likely a false belief. And that because of Ocam's razor, the most rational thing to do is to stick to the simplest explanation: That fairies do not exist.


You consider that linking pixies with the horrendous BS that astrology is a statement of ignorance. You have lost 2 internets

I'll give you that me linking fairies with astrology was a rather low blow. Unlike Astrology, fairies may actually exist with an incredibly low probability or be a belief remotely based on reality like some sort of butterfly or something whereas Astrology really has no merit. Although fairies are kind of a ridiculous belief, Astrology probably wins the award of the worst of the false beliefs that don't spread disease. (Anti-vax nuttiness would be the worst belief ever because it does spread disease , but that is a different category).

Assuming this quote is true and not one of those zillions of misattributed quotes . who cares? Just because he was good at physics doesn't mean we should follow his other beliefs, like marrying your cousing, sleeping with anything that moves and giving a wall of indifference to your actual children (He was a terrible, terrible parent).



No need to have any such material. Since no mechanism was found in which constellations and planets alter your behavior and since Astrology does not even try to model anything close to such mechanism and instead uses arguments such as:

* Wow Mars looks red to us, so it must mean WAR!

or

* I like triangles so square patterns must mean confrontation!

. And since there is no evidence at all that suggests it works. And in fact, plenty of evidence against it. (Quick example: Many people with my same birth date are horribly different, for example sports guys). Then Astrology is utter BS. Most probably some hobbo out there wanted an excuse to receive money and couldn't think of anything better than using planets as a method of divination.

Here's a good starting point. It has been written by kids. Hehe, yeah that's right, there are kids out there that are using reason more than you. http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/astrology.html

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 29 Aug 2011, 4:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Angry aspies ho!

Philologos, the premise is based upon the idea of "perfection". If something chooses a less than perfectly good act, then it stands to reason that this thing is not perfectly good. Why? Because it could have done BETTER. So, that premise is merely a matter of logic. If you don't follow logic, then you won't follow the rationale.


Philologos, you might as well gripe that I think a worm-filled apple could be better without the worms. The set of possibly improvements that could be made is outrageously large. To say that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a failure is thus downright questionable, only a motivated thinker like an apologist, or a fool could question this. As I've pointed out before, your skepticism is downright ridiculous and various existing emotions, such as regret, wishes, and other things, RELY on the notion that the world could be better than it currently is, so.... we reject SO MANY INTUITIONS by taking the world as the "best of all possible worlds" that we really cannot take the idea seriously. All of the skepticism motivated towards this simple and intuition proposition thus strikes me as a form of idiocy. This is particularly true given that most theisms also include a heavenly afterlife, which IS MUCH MUCH BETTER. So, if heaven can exist as a better state of affairs, then a better state of affairs then the workings of this world exists. So... why wasn't it actualized in this world??? No real answer. Thus, it is ridiculous.

91, we've been through this argument before. Your objections are still ludicrous and you are still nothing but a hack apologist with no conception of intellectual honesty or integrity. You've been willing to deny basic textbook facts due to your agenda and there have been witnesses to that.

"So in essence you are requiring God to do what cannot be done." If God is logically required to do something undoable, then this is a disproof of God. That's that. You seem to fail to understand that. So, if perfect goodness cannot be actualized in this world, then there is no such thing as a perfectly good being, thus God does not exist. And if any being can always be BETTER, as we've argued before, then God cannot exist. If there is no perfect world, then any being can always have some improvement by actualizing a better world.

But this is the best possible version of the world in which people have the free will to screw it up. I believe God has the capability to sin and does not, and he wanted somebody like that (in his image) to love and love him. The imperfect nature of the world (natural disasters) are caused by the absence of God (he used to hold the world together and prevent these things from happening) because we turned our backs on God (at the fall of man), and we as a species have not reconciled with him through the means he provided (christ). If you need me to clarify anything you don't think i've rebutted, let me know which point.

I've never seen so many misconceptions about astrology in one place. It's like a greatest hits medley.

You are the Jive Bunny of not understanding astrology.

Just excuse the 'hack apologist'. It's not a disproof of God just a disproof of what you are requiring must be done. If goodness lies in doing the best thing all the time, then not even a logically perfectly good being can do it. You definition of goodness has failed, since it can never be met. Goodness must therefor exist in going the logically justified.

Vexillifer, old top:

You actually wrote:

"But I find the notion of people that get offended by the idea of people sharing their dissonant beliefs quite ridiculous. "

WHAT in Great Patham's seventh hell does that mean in real world English?

WHO gets upset if someone shares their Green Monkey deviationism?

Not I - WHEN i find someone who actually agrees - once a decade maybe - I am fine with it.

Moog, of all the mods currently active, you are the one I respect most, so what I am about to say is a reflection of that respect, and said with the utmost sincerity.

I have been an astrologer. I have cast horoscopes and told fortunes based on the arrangement of the planets. I know all the terms, and have even been hailed for my insight and wisdom into the lives of my clients.

But at no time did I ever discern any clear causality between behavior or fortune, and the arrangement of the stars and planets. All I ever did was follow the basic procedures for charting natal, current, and future planetary arrangements, then edit a series of Barnum statements into a few short paragraphs, while placing the focus on the clients' interests in business, education, health, money, romance, travel, and personal goals. I also practically memorized the entire contents of a book called, "Passages - Predictable Crises of Adult Life", by Gail Sheehy. This is a book that trained therapists and counselors use in determining what interests a person may have, based on age, gender, marital status, et cetera. It is as much of a "cheat" for them as it was for me. I recently found a 5-page PDF entitled, "Learn To Be A Psychic In 10 Easy Lessons!", which pretty much sums up everything I ever knew about being an "psychic" or an astrologer.

Also, the ephemeris that the majority of astrologers use is at least 2000 years out of date. This means that the planets may not be in the exact position that the astrologer thinks they are when casting the 'scope. This alone puts the 'scope in doubt, as its base data is inaccurate right from the start.

Please do not take it as a personal affront when I say that astrology is not a fact-based science, it is instead a faith-based system for parting clients from their money while providing common-sense counseling - which is something that any trained and licensed psychologist could do for ten times what the average astrologer charges per session, or that any religious leader could do for a free meal and an extra twenty in the collection plate.

Now, with all that said, please understand that I am not trying to convince you to give up your beliefs. I am just trying to relate my own experiences and understanding as a former astrologer who is now in a more scientific frame of mind.

Finally, please consider that those who criticize your belief may not have the same knowledge of the subject that you or I have. I know how it is done, and I know what goes on between astrologer and client. There is a level of trust that can not be ethically breached. So what if the client takes home what amounts to a pretty drawing with arcane symbols on it, and derives comfort from the idea that he or she somehow has a little more control of his or her life than others? As long as you are morally bound to providing ethical counseling, and are not exploiting your clients beyond their capacity to provide for themselves and their families, you may be providing a valued service to your community.

Blessed Be!

-Fnord-

(PS: I wish more religious leaders would follow the ideology of that last sentence.)

I have no objection to people offering dissonant beliefs. Who said I did?

My point remains the same, If somebody "crashes" a topic NOT about what we believe and starts ranting about what they believe, WTF? Completely in appropriate. I'm NOT talking about people presenting an atheist or dissonant point of view on the subject at hand.

Umm, yes actually I have had atheists use the words "you shouldn't believe" to my face.

Umm, well actually if the topic of discussion is not weather fairies exist then it is rude to just change the topic of a thread to suit you. I get it, you think you should be able to comment what ever you like, where ever you like and everybody should love it. I get your point of view. I don't agree. I am moving on.

I couldn't care less if a theist is 'converted' by my criticism of their religion, but if said theist is going to bleat all over about what they believe, I'm going to feel free to criticize their hypotheses the same as I'd criticize any other hypotheses.