Relax Sicarius.
=============================================
Perhaps it was missed in all of the posts that happened around it, but any chance I could get you to explain a bit more your thinking in saying that the fact that humans are imperfect leads to the conclusion that there must be a perfect being?
=============================================
No, everyone still wouldn't believe me even if I did.

relax isnt really a valid answer to anything that I've said

Relax in general then.

you do realise sioraf you havnt really responded to any other the questions in the posts or comments anyway

relax isnt a response.

respond in at least a token way or dont be part of the disscussion

Respond to Sicarius?! Are you serious?

To respond to this notion of groupthinking:

It would seem that those who follow a certain religion in fact derive their argument from a set number of sacred texts and then reinforce their belief using personal experience. That sounds rather like groupthinking to me.

Why must the human be imperfect? I think it is a rather grim view of life to think that we are all sinners. I could not possibly imagine looking at my child in such a way. Humans do things that are not accepted by society, but they are merely societal constructs.

And Sioraf, if you explained and perhaps refined you argument it would be better than simply saying, "this is how it is" no one necessarily will believe you, but it's generally hard to change peoples positions on things anyway. If you explained it we would at least understand your point of view

Like I say, balance of power. Just think about, if humans were all powerful that would be absolute chaos but without a god what would stop humans from being all powerful?

yes respond to sicarius. completely.


@ valaois i think humans are imperfect, but disagree with most religions that humans are flawed in some way. we're not flawed, we're human. it's mother culture's greatest myth that humans are flawed, or broken, or incomplete, or somehow doomed to misery.

why would it be chaos if humans were all powerful?
why would the absence of a god make humans all powerful?

i have a question why are humans different from animals ie if we have a god do you think so do lions?or if there was no god would the lions get all powerful just like us!

I knew responding would be pointless.

only because you have responded in a wholly inadequate manner

Well, I honestly just asking because I was curious at the logic involved. I still don't understand how one leads to the other, but it's certainly your right not to answer.

I'll be sure to light a votive candle for all of you wayward souls.

Reformed Presbyterian... "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Galatians 2:20).

lighting a candle for me is a waste of wax

i dont consider my soul wayward i will have a drink for yours though as i snort coke off a hookers breasts while i covert my neighbours ass ;p

no no, snort the coke off a hunting knife.

or a crucifix hahahaha

no the crucifix is being used elseware ;)

Sioraf... I have no idea where to start... you tote logic and philosophy as weapons but you've been wounding your argument with them more than you've been helping them. Do you have any education in logic or philosophy?

Let me put your arguments into two syllogisms. Correct me if I've interpreted them wrongly. Obviously I've simplified them, there are a few other syllogisms between, but I feel they're trivial in comparison.

Premise. We humans are imperfect.
Premise. There must be an underlying balance to our imperfection.
Conclusion: There must be a perfect being to balance out human perfection, this being is God.

Firstly, if there must be an underlying balance, why would perfection balance out imperfection...? Secondly, I agree it would be acceptable to call a perfect being God, but since you are a Catholic, how does this perfect being translate to the Catholic God, especially when the Bible shows many instances of God's imperfection. Why can this God not be the Islamic God, or the Hebrew God, or even the Protestant God? Of course, the main issue with the syllogism is the second premise. Your idea of underlying balance seems to be completely intuitive, and not on anything concrete. What gives you the impression there must be a balance? I have a feeling you'll say something along the lines of "it would be illogical for there to be no balance", which brings me to your second main argument.

Premise: Everything must have purpose, it is illogical to assume otherwise.
Premise: Humans exist.
Conclusion: Humans must then have a purpose.

Once again, I take issue with one of your premises. Why is it completely illogical for there to be no purpose? I believe you are assuming this based on your intuitive idea of the universe. It's probably quite ingrained in your mind. I would argue that existence is contingent, and that it inherently has no purpose. We are all simply the result of a long chain of cause and effect resulting from the laws of physics, etc. Our purpose isn't necessarily to reproduce and survive, as per evolution, it's simply that as living organisms that have a drive to reproduce and survive we have more of a tendency to exist than does an organism lacking this drive, and we can't observe what does not exist. We exist because we're good at existing. This may sound bleak for someone who's long been on the drug of religion, but what it means is that we have no external purpose that forces itself upon us. Rather, we are free to make of our lives what we will. We are in a unique position to choose to continue to exist, and to choose how we go about our existence, and to choose our purpose.

I was a little miffed by your idea that these should be argued upon grounds of philosophy rather than science... there is no dichotomy between philosophy and science. The scientific method was the result of naturalistic philosophy, and science offers many of the premises upon which modern philosophy is based. Of course, if you truly want to argue on philosophical terms, try reading the large body of atheistic philosophy that exists... say... atheistic existentialism...?

Apparently you've been ignoring Archonix, because you keep saying that we atheists are simply sheep reciting groupthink and that we have yet to disprove the existence of God, but simply criticize various doctrines of Christianity... Even if a God existed, there is nothing to suggest that we would naturally have a belief of God. This is evidenced by the millions of atheist children brought up in non religious households as well as the great variety of gods, monotheistic and polytheistic, that everyone else ascribes to. It may be hard for you to imagine not having a concept of God but that's because it's potent idea that's floated around our culture and is nearly inescapable. The burden of proof does not lie with atheists, but with the religious, because it is the one that is introducing a supernatural being and a set of rules that must be justified. Saying that we have yet to disprove God is like saying we have yet to disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster. We can't consider every supernatural notion anyone has, let alone disprove it.

When you understand why you don't ascribe to the plethora of Gods that have been worshipping throughout history, then you'll understand why we don't ascribe to yours, or anyone's.

Chris, if you want anyone to read your posts your going to have to make them shorter. Less fluff plz.

Moving on, what are our views on Fate? This should be good

Ignoring the horrendous blasphemy stated a little above, I kind of have to agree with at least Chris' premise, albeit for different reasons. God can't be proven to exist because if He exists, He created the physical realm in which we are trying to define him, and must therefore transcend it and not be directly observable. Unless he directly would intervene of course, but let's leave miracles out. My point is that faith can't be backed up by any tangible proof, otherwise it wouldn't really be faith.

And there is no Fate, there's Free Will. Of course, if this view happens to be contrary to the dogma of the Catholic Church I will retract it.

Forget a votive candle, some of you need a Mass said for your souls.

Yes, Invictus, apparently we agree on that point. But I would then argue that there's no point in modelling your life around a supreme being that can't directly intervene in your life. I don't find religiosity necessary to believe in a creator god.

@El_Perro_Artero, sorry if you won't read them, but I think that if someone is actually concerned about the issue they'll take the time to read it, as I've taken the time to read every reply preceding mine. I don't want to be misunderstood, though it will probably happen. I don't exactly see where the fluff is.

Re: Fate. I believe we have choice, but I don't believe in the conventional view of Free Will, because I believe that our choices are completely a result of our neurobiology and as a result the tiny tickings of physical laws. I don't exactly know if this means there is fate; certainly it's not any fate that we can ever predict thanks to the uncertainty principle. If the quantum world is truly random, and not just unpredictable, then the universe may not be completely determinate. That is to say, if we set back the entire universe 10 minutes, would I once again be typing this reply? Or would the apparently random effects of quantum mechanics result in a slightly or dramatically different universe?

Invictus: Can we still buy indulgences?

El_Perro_Artero: I thought it was pretty concise

These threads are always depressing :-(

i like sliding doors version of fate!

or put simply theres points in your life that will happen and its up to you how you get to them.

Does "Does fate exist" mean "is the world deterministic" or "do we have a destiny". If the former it's a quantum physics question and the answer is no, if it's the latter it depends what destiny means (another debate that boils down to word definitions :-( )

I didn't say God couldn't intervene in our lives, I just said it would be pointless to try and prove it in our material world. Also, angry atheists or other sinful people (I don't really mean to sound so medieval, I just don't know what other words to use) would always find ways to discredit even genuine religious experiences.

Indulgences are incredibly complicated. The never granted forgiveness of sins, just from the temporal punishment. Basically, you get out of doing penance, I think.

You get an indulgence from preforming a certain act, like saying a rosary or going on a retreat. There are also a whole bunch of requirements for your personal feelings to make it legitimate which escape me now.

You haven't been able to buy an indulgence since 1567.