Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About LimitedGrip

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Sports, Science, MtG, Christianity/Atheism
  • More About Me
    Raised Baptist--YEC--gradually migrated to OEC, theistic "evolutionist", liberal Christianity, and finally atheism.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

343 profile views
  1. Sh** christians have said to you

    In a discussion with a Christian about slavery in the Bible, he says: "You gotta have a little common sense when reading the Bible."
  2. Please test this. Thank you.

    Ugh. I submit, again, that I am less knowledgeable about cosmology than are you. But the point of your original post was to propose a syllogism, at heart. Not something that was merely, "better than what creationists got." Let it also be known that I know where you are coming from in that my youngest brother came to be an atheist due, in large part, with his fascination in cosmology. A route utterly independent of my own. I find it hard to consider abstract concepts...even the dual slit experiment. But for him, it's fodder. Eats it up. I fully believe that there is a disconnect dependent on how one's mind processes information. Neither better than the other, but functionally at odds. I imagine there are the rare few who can adequately bridge the gap. I don't mean to be harsh, because I have thoroughly enjoyed every post in this thread; and I hope you are, in fact, on to something.
  3. Please test this. Thank you.

    Thanks for the links. I didn't intend to appeal to consensus. I was just curious about the level of "competition" between theories, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make any conclusions about the evidence. And, I understand that inflation is pretty well supported, but was more curious about the support for the inference of the pocket universes--which is basically the multiverse theory, correct? Or is that something else? I'll definitely take a look at your links. Thanks.
  4. Please test this. Thank you.

    Ah, well, I can not critique this then. Cosmology is not my strong suit. Except to ask, what is the level of acceptance of this particular theory, and are there competing ones?
  5. Please test this. Thank you.

    True, and since space is expanding, there is nothing to say that ALL patterns will repeat themselves. Indeed, at some point, wouldn't the energy in the universe be so spread out that stars, planets, and people cannot be formed?
  6. Please test this. Thank you.

    Can you expand on #4? What internal logic dictates that the number of patterns is finite? What I mean to say is, since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. Therefore, a finite amount of patterns can be produced. Perhaps spell it out a little more like that, instead of just saying the internal logic of physics dictates it.
  7. Please understand that the version of evolution you are probably familiar with is a caricature created by uneducated apologists, and does not represent what scientists have actually discovered. Before you write it off, it would behoove you to understand what it is scientists are really claiming.
  8. An Atheist Argument for Objective Morality

    There is nothing dangerous about the belief, in and of itself. The danger comes when a person thinks he/she already has the knowledge (through subjective means), and it just so happens to coincide with his or her ambitions, much like the Christian's "knowledge" of objective morality. Though it is, admittedly, a bad definition, in retrospect. Apart from the input given in this thread, I've since thought of some reasons of my own that make the definition not work. Ultimately, I was just trying to build on the idea of morality being an evolved trait due to populations surviving/reproducing more by cooperating with moral cohesion.
  9. An Atheist Argument for Objective Morality

    LG, I submit that if a person had no choice and their decisions are made for them, then they cannot logically be held responsible for the consequences of those actions. So whether their 'controlled' action is helpful or harmful to society, they cannot and should not receive either praise or punishment. It is the controlling agent (who overrode their free will) who must be the one who must inherit the consequences. The responsibility is solely theirs. Wouldn't you agree? Indeed I would. In fact, I have often used a similar argument when discussing god's alleged "omni" attributes. I just hadn't considered piecing it together, as a precursor, with this moral idea. So thanks for that.
  10. Uniqueness Points Towards Christianity

    Why do you think these observations can't be analyzed scientifically? How are you going to get meaningful information from your observations, if you don't analyze them? What questions could you ask to eliminate other explanations for your observation? The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that Christianity is true, and regarding any attribute, no matter how trivial, as support for that a priori belief. But what if you were agnostic? What separates Christianity from any other philosophy regarding uniqueness? Can you see that from our point of view, uniqueness points in multiple directions, and tells us nothing?
  11. Uniqueness Points Towards Christianity

    Is faith, in general, dependent on and justified by such observations?
  12. Uniqueness Points Towards Christianity

    I'd also like to point out that your anecdote does not work as evidence because uniqueness is ALSO consistent with humanism/naturalism. Your observation makes no distinction between the two. It's like saying that you found a dead animal in Africa, and concluded that it must have been killed by a polar bear because the wounds were consistent with sharp teeth, and powerful bites.
  13. An Atheist Argument for Objective Morality

    It occurs to me that there is another category I hadn't considered when writing my initial post: Conditional topics. That is, depending on the environment, things could be either beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. However, I wonder if things like sadistic torture, or rape, would always be detrimental to society, regardless of environment. If it is subjective, we continue on as we have been. If it is objective, the potential to improve society through the quantification of that fact, would increase, I should think. A good point. Defining morality as that which helps or hurts society seems deficient, in this case. Even if a person commits an act that is objectively detrimental to society, if he/she had no freewill to do otherwise, would it still be considered immoral? Likely not.
  14. Uniqueness Points Towards Christianity

    Anecdotes are not evidence. I meant no offense; I simply think that your argument holds little value; that it is a non-sequitur, from which no conclusions can be made.
  15. An Atheist Argument for Objective Morality

    Yes, but are there topics which are objectively detrimental to society? And is defining morality as that which is beneficial/detrimental to society a valid proposition?