Posts by Coded Logic

80

God is not an element both in religious fanaticism and atheism alike

by exWTslave in

in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .

hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).

hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.

Coded Logic

How would you feel about that traveler?

How would you answer to that student?

If they were following your initial premise (You have to have a SOURCE behind all resources), when applied to your anology would be, "Every flight has to have a flight that preceeds it."

Following your intial justification for the need of a creator, the question (what flight comes before the first flight) would be perfectly valid. You cannot say "everything needs a creator therefore God exists." And then cry foul when people ask "who created God?" This is known as Special Pleading: You make up some arbitrary claim to support your conclusion and then try and shield your conclusion from the very arbitrary claim that YOU made up.

YOUR claim is either true or it's NOT true - and can be expressed in the following way:

1.) Everything needs a creator

2.) Everything doesn't need a creator

If you're right and, #1 is true, then everything needs a creator - which means that God too needs a creator. If your wrong, and #2 is true, then everything doesn't need a creator - which means there is no need for God. Which is it?

21

Exerps, Conversation/Debate with a close old friend still in the Borg. Comments please!

by dark angle in

part 1. .

she was suspecting me that i'm no longer interested in the borg, and she was trying to get a confession.

this is how our conversation went out.

Coded Logic

From you discussion you posted, I think your friend would do well to learn that sincerity is not the same thing as humility. And a person can be sincere while simultaneously being arrogant.

Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. Claiming to have abilities or knowledge that one doesn't actually have.

Just because she has good intentions does not mean she has good facts. Sincerity is not a metric for determining the truth of a claim.

Edit: Seems like ablebodiedman might need to learn this too.

23

Religion without revelation - any examples from the past?

by EdenOne in

i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?

this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.

i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".

Coded Logic

Wait, are you looking for a religion whos founder didn't claim revelation? Or are you looking for a religion where its founder wasn't later mythologized? The two are seperate criteria.

23

Religion without revelation - any examples from the past?

by EdenOne in

i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?

this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.

i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".

Coded Logic

The story you're refernecing about Zoroastrianism was added centuries later and was not part of Zarathushtra's teachings. The Gathas are universally acknowledged to be his actual words (one of very few writings by the actual founder of an ancient religion). So we can seperate the actual person from the legends that followed later. In the Gatha, Zarathushtra never claims nor implies God spoke to him. To the contrary, his poem was a prayer of sorts to the Gods.

"Zarathushtra's theology is always projected with a moral dimension, Asha always carries the joint meaning of Truth and Righteousness. Thus we comprehend the world as an intrinsically good, divine creation, contaminated by evil, but capable of being perfected by the actions of humans by reason of their capacity of moral choice. Human action can promote good and reject evil leading to its ultimate banishment from the world, though it may continue to exist as a conceptual possibility."

"The focus of Gathic teaching is one of a world afflicted with suffering, inequity, and imperfection, the goal being to transform it and bring it to perfection, that is, in consonance with Truth, by the comprehending power of the Good-Mind. Such a perfecting world would progressively bring satisfaction to all the good creation. And it would inaugurate the desired kingdom, Khshathra Vairya, where the ideal society would manifest peaceful social existence in which all interests would be harmonized and balanced in a just order, for that is an implication of Asha. This achievement depends on enlightened human thinking and right-minded human resolve."

- Dr. Kaikhosrov Irani

Hope that clears things up a bit :)

23

Religion without revelation - any examples from the past?

by EdenOne in

i'm researching on the common trait of mostly every religion coming from pre-humanist times, and that would be, the notion of "revelation", that is, that at the beginning of every [i say this with caution because i'm admitting to exceptions] religion there is some sort of "revelation" from supernatural being(s) of some sort.. my question is: do you know of any example of religions from the past that you can confidently say that were exempt from "revelation"?

this is not the same as asking if there were religions without gods, or religions of nature.

i'm not even considering what i understand as philosophical-ethical systems, such as confucionism or platonism my purpose is to find out if, at the starting point of all religions of the past, there is a "revelation", or merely "observation / contemplation".

Coded Logic

Jainism is one of the oldest religions and I believe it meets your requirments of no purported revelation, enlightenment from a supernatural origin, or mystical connection with a supernatural world. The worlds oldest known religion, Zoroastrianism, also claims no devine revelation. It's founder, Zoroaster, based the religion off his philosophical views of creation, existance, and the condition of free will.

1

Peoples favorite toy

by Coded Logic in

i really do miss christopher hitchens.

truely a brilliant mind.. "first, i've said repeatedly that religion cannot be taken away from people.

it is their favourite toy.

Coded Logic

I really do miss Christopher Hitchens. Truly a brilliant mind.

"First, I've said repeatedly that religion cannot be taken away from people. It is their favourite toy. And it will remain their favourite toy as long as they're afraid of death.

Second, I hope I've made it clear, that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and to share them with other people who come around and play with their toys. That's absolutely fine.

However, they are NOT to make me play with these toys! I will not play with your toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with your toys, don't say that my toys -might be a condom - are not allowed by your toys. I'm not going to have any of that! Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? Thank you!"

6

See? It's all in the mind!

by cliff in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29939672.

.

Coded Logic

" The team believes when people sense a ghostly presence, the brain is getting confused: it's miscalculating the body's position and identifying it as belonging to someone else."

Way cooler than actual ghosts! I love science :)

51

What JW's are afraid of~

by kairos in

just putting together a mental list:.

jehovah .

jesus.

Coded Logic

Independant thinking! AHhhhh!

80

God is not an element both in religious fanaticism and atheism alike

by exWTslave in

in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .

hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).

hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.

Coded Logic

THE NATURAL STATE OF MATTER IS A STATE OF REST.

- exWTslave

This claim is demonstrably false. The "natural" state of matter is constant velocity - NOT rest. A state of "rest" is not possible inside our universe. The motion of objects can only be measured in comparison to other objects. Our universe is in a state of perpetual and increasing expansion. There is no such thing as zero speed.

80

God is not an element both in religious fanaticism and atheism alike

by exWTslave in

in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .

hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).

hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.

Coded Logic

Motion in our universe comes from the four fundamental forces and space/time expansion. No supernatural explination required.

The existance of energy is proof that energy exists. It is NOT proof that something exists outside of space and time. And it's NOT proof of any kind of creative agency.

"I don't know how this works - therefore God." Is not a sound logical argument. You cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. You cannot explain one unknown by postulating the existance of another unknown.

Please see the formal logical fallacy of argument from ignorance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance