Mmmm. Fair enough. With that comment I wasn't necessarily talking about you. I have no reason to think you are intolerant of lifestyle choices or sexuality. But there is much more than a small minority of Christians who are intolerant of things like that, and those Christians are also likely to be very intolerant of atheists, and people of other religions as well. I will cop to backpedaling a little here. I know plenty of Christians and other religious people who are open minded, tolerant and just generally good people. It's easy in a debate like this to gloss over that. And also to pretend that the other sides point of view is completely monolithic and it's not. So I offer a changed point of view which is this. There are Christians who don't bother debating back against atheists because they really are tolerant and do respect the atheist point of view (and I suppose this is you CA) but then there are also others who don't fight back simply because they don't really think a handful of irreligious malcontents are really a threat to their interests.

On the whole lifestyle thing,

I was on the road with a circus at 14 yrs. old & hanging out at my buddy's art college frequently in school. Truly, lifestyle has never been an issue for me. People on both sides of this issue get hung up on this or that being a sin. There really are a whole lot worse things someone can do than fall in love, and nobody is completely without sin. It's when people want to make one thing a "big sin" it's usually to blind themselves to their own "little sins"

Ohhhhh ... Well in that case. I think this whole argument has been for naught. I think I do see texasdeluxe's point. But I think his generalizations are a little too sweeping. I think what he means (and if it's not I hope he will step up and correct my misapprehension) is this: if, for instance, an openly, and for the sake my point, very obviously gay person were to go meet a group of atheists and a group of Christians, he might find himself welcomed regardless of his sexual orientation in either group, but with the atheists, the matter of his sexuality would almost certainly be a non-issue, whereas with the Christians, the matter is far more up in the air. I think where texasdeluxe perhaps oversteps his point is in tarring all religious people with that brush.

" ... but then there are also others who don't fight back simply because they don't really think a handful of irreligious malcontents are really a threat to their interests. "

Undoubtedly so, but be careful about attributing motives to people who aren't talking. It can color your whole outlook of them without any actual input from them on the subject.

I can see your point. For my part you'd be welcomed as just another sinner like me.

Yeah, I think I got carried away in this debate. Sorry. For my part I do not doubt at all that we could get along also.

"So you think its OK if God told you to slaughter children. Its morally defensible to do so if you think God told you to do that"
God would never tell me to do that, but if I thought he did, I would make 100% sure it was Him, and then ask why. If the reason was good, I might do it, or I might not. Because it wouldn't be immoral either way, I believe.

If I seem to be spouting controversial points of view, it's more from an academic, theoretical and hypothetical point of view to keep this debate rolling rather than a personal intolerance. I do have religious friends, even an American friend who chooses to believe in creationism, so from a practical perspective in everyday life, I agree to disagree.

I am actually quite an agreeable guy. I'm just shit stirring for the most part to keep this discussion lively (and I must say, I'm glad it hasn't deteriorated into a flame war as I thought it would, so good work everyone).

Back to a previous question: Does our (atheist, religious, agnostic) acceptance of different beliefs/dogmas enable religious fundamentalism to thrive, or to put it another way, where do we draw the line when it comes to religious beliefs in society and how much should any particular religious belief influence law (for eg. polygamy)?

@ Conservative Man: What about the Binding of Isaac? Didn't God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah? Didn't Abraham agree? Isn't the moral of that nice little parable about not questioning God's commands, no matter how heinous?

@ Crazy Anglican: "Time is a function of the universe. God, having created the universe, can act upon it but is not a part of it, so he's outside of it's timestream. Tell me if or how time acts outside of this universe and we might be able to work out if God needs a creator."

The suggestion that 'god is outside of the universe' is absurd and illogical. There is no such thing as 'outside the universe'. The common definition of 'universe' is:

'The totality of everything that exists'

NOTHING exists outside the universe. There is no 'outside'.


"The possibility of other beings existing without being created only strengthens the point it was intended to ridicule. So what? what if there are fifty such beings each having created its own universe. It does not detract from God creating this one."

You missed my point. The point is that if god could exist without having been created, it would also be possuble that the universe could also exist without having been created. This would negate the argument the the universe needs a 'first cause'.


@ Conservative Man:

"@Jamiet: Nothing Caused God! Do you understand that that is what I believe. He was just THERE."

For the last time, I once again challenge you to explain WHY you believe this is the case, when there is absolutely no evidence in support of your view?


@kreilly89: "@JamieT: I didn't make as complete a statement as I should have, Aquinas defines the uncaused cause as God as it is the only way to prevent a causal chain. That isn't to say that God is a special case as Aquinas doesn't attempt to argue from that point, but simply that unless an uncaused cause existed at the beginning of the universe a causal chain would occur. He defines that uncaused cause as God, in no way does he attempt to argue that God is a "special case" in terms of not needing a cause as that isn't the point he is making."

I agree that Aquinas does not set out to make the point that god is a special case. Nonetheless, by saying "everything needs a cause, EXCEPT GOD" he uses god as a special case, whether he means to or not. It goes like this:

1. Everything needs a cause.
2. God does not need a cause - he is the 'uncaused cause'
3. Therefore God is different from everything else that exists.

That's presenting god as a special case, whether you like it or not.

Why don't you just ask him if he exists? It worked for me.

Mujus +1

@ Mujus: Did you get a reply?

God @ Mujus: If you have to ask, then no, I don't ;P

@Jamiet99uk

Not quite, the definition is:

"the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."

combine that with multiple universes theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

and the claim of having "no outside" isn't decided at all even among physicists. You appear to be twisting definitions (or at least truncating them) to make your refutation seem solid, but it's hardly so. Even among materialists there is the possibility of multiple unisverses.

A neighboring universe is "outside" of ours just as you neighbor's house is outside of yours. Were not merely talking about another set of stars a long way off but an entirely different universe that is separate from ours.

@ Mujus

I did; he laughed and said "yes". Are you sure you're using the right frequency?

@texas: "What about the Binding of Isaac? Didn't God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah? Didn't Abraham agree? Isn't the moral of that nice little parable about not questioning God's commands, no matter how heinous?" Yes, but Abraham had a lot more faith than I. And slaughtering a whole town is different than killing one person (Abraham assumed God would bring Isaac back to life, but I wouldn't assume that with a whole town).
@Jamiet: "For the last time, I once again challenge you to explain WHY you believe this is the case, when there is absolutely no evidence in support of your view?" Because I see no evidence or possibility of the universe being created on its own.

@ Jamiet99uk

"You missed my point. The point is that if god could exist without having been created, it would also be possuble that the universe could also exist without having been created. This would negate the argument the the universe needs a 'first cause'."

I responded to this in my last post but wanted to be a little more specific. There can certainly be an "outside" of this universe. Physics points to the possibility, and a being in that universe need not be subject to the laws of this one. Therefore there is no "special case for God", a being outside this universe need not be subject to the laws of this universe. That goes for anything outside of this universe, not merely God.

So your conclusion is faulty, God not needing a creator (in another universe or dimension) can have no bearing whatsoever on this universe needing a creator. We can observe cause and effect in this universe but cannot oberve such in another. So far, I've not asserted anything about the "outside" and you're making suppositions about it. Upon what evidence do you make these suppositions? I have seen none. All I've said about it is that it is separate and that it could be very different; both terms seem self-evident to me.

Crazy Anglican +1

for me those that believe in god is believing in an adult version of santa claus

@ Crazy Anglican: It's my view that the 'multiple universes' theory is our age's version of the Ptolemaic epicycles. It seems better to say "the universe may be more complex than we previously thought" than "there are multiple universes". Either way, I am sticking to the view that the universe has no "outside".

In any case, even if you hold that there is an "outside", this does not prove the argument from causation, because the act of creating the universe would have to have taken place "outside" the universe and thus our laws of cause and effect would not apply to the act of creation. It is therefore not possible to claim that the universe "must have been caused" in this way.

Nothing can be outside the universe, as the definition of universe is *everything* in existence, you can't get multiple universes.

@ CM: You chip in with a "plus 1" for Crazy Anglican, but still you haven't answered my question to you.

@ Largeham: "Nothing can be outside the universe, as the definition of universe is *everything* in existence, you can't get multiple universes."

Yes, that's my point. I'm glad you agree.

@Jamiet99uk

Now I think that you misunderstand my point. I'm not in the least interested in proving God's existence or that he created the world. I have faith that they are true, but understand that they are articles of faith.

One the other hand your articles of faith are presented as if they were logic or science.
for instance you stated:

"It's my view that the 'multiple universes' theory is our age's version of the Ptolemaic epicycles."

Which clearly points out that you are making an opinion statement which must be supported to be relevant.

Then you stated
"It seems better to say 'the universe may be more complex than we previously thought' than 'there are multiple universes'."

The problem is that there is no difference between the statements, Whether we call it an alternate dimension or another universe there is still no need to assumed that all of our laws apply to that dimension. Indeed we cannot say so without being reduced to conjecture.

"Either way, I am sticking to the view that the universe has no 'outside'."

Indeed, you have to in opposition of physical theories that say otherwise. THe problem is once you say "Well the physics doesn't support me so there must be something wrong with the physics" then you're just cherry picking scientific theories to find those that support your preconceived notions. I can't think of anything more detrimental to a materialistic worldview than ignoring the evidence like that.

Then you move on:
"In any case, even if you hold that there is an 'outside', this does not prove the argument from causation, because the act of creating the universe would have to have taken place 'outside' the universe and thus our laws of cause and effect would not apply to the act of creation. It is therefore not possible to claim that the universe 'must have been caused' in this way."

As I stated, I'm in no way interested in proving God's existence. I am showing you that your refutation is entirely lacking. It is merely your opinion that appears to be based upon twisting definitions and ignoring science.

@largeham

That definition is a truncated one, take a look at the dicionary definition that I cited and you'll see what you're leaving out. Also take a look at the mulitple universes theory link. There is nothing faith based about either, but they refute your (and Jamiet99uk's) claim. It is certainly possible that their are multiple universes or dimensions.

Agreed with CA. I can tell by your statements that you don't fully understand (not that anyone really does...) the concept of multiunverses, or Many Worlds as it's often called in QM. It'd be better to say, "I don't know." Than to hold such an opinion with no backing.

Many Worlds is a fairly common interpretation for Wave Form Collapse in QM. I know I seem to reference QM a lot and there are two reasons for this 1) if Obi can make everything into a Star Trek reference, I should be able to do it for QM 2) It's a wonderful way to illustrate scientifically how things happen that seem so weird, many people would not believe it if "scientists" didn't say it was true.

So, don't say you don't like Many Worlds because it doesn't "seem right," because Quantum Tunneling and Quantum Entanglement doesn't make any fucking sense either and yet we *know* (sorry Thucy) it happens.

BAM! abgemacht is takin' names!

@ abgemacht: I didn't say "it doesn't seem right", I said it was wrong to use the term "multiple universes" because that is not a term which makes any sense, because 'the universe' is everything there is.

Crazy Anglican is proud of the dictionary definiton he quoted. I can also offer some definitions of the term "the universe", from reputable sources:

"The universe is a vast expanse of space which contains all of the matter and energy in existence." - NASA

"The universe is the totality of all the things that exist." - Webster's Dictionary (New World College Editon)

"What is the universe? The universe is what we call everything." - Dr Stuart Clark, leading astronomy journalist and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.

So there we have it:

The Universe = Everything
Everything = The Universe

If something exists, it is part of the universe. There can therefore be no "outside the universe".

If you don't believe that's the case, take your argument up with NASA and the Royal Astronomical Society, because they know a lot more about it than me, but for now I'm happy to rely on their expertise to support my claim.

@Jamiet: I did answer your question. See my post before the +1 post.