Conway: your conceptually confused. Lets begin:
quote:
Do you then realise that even if you accoplish you task, and you understand everything as nature, it is still then pointless. Because a moment will come were you no longer have all that knowledge you have gained. What is your point. Futhermore not beleiving in God is an escape and beleiving is the solution. You are the one without a solution. You have no reasoning for reasoning. Were as I do. But you don't like the most logical of answers so you call it an escape. It is the most logical thing that an omnipotent being should exist. Or that in fact we ourselfs will reach omnipotent levels. There is no reson in us liveing if there is no resaon. And we do live so then there must be a reason
That is not a reason why it is pointless. Firstly you are full of naivety. Secondly, you are blind from an Atheist's point of view, that the point of life is to live through no fear of death, no illusion, no faith, no misconception, no brainwashing, etc. Thirdly, I really do begin to ponder whether you have regurgitated bullshit, that you haven't taken into consideration, and/or you may haven't read mine or others posts thoroughly. I also think your words are the symptom of an emotional outburst and that your perception of what life is seems dissaranged . You haven't really provided a robust rebuttal. Maybe not, thats just my perception. Thats understandable, because your here to learn. This is a thread about the absence of a 'god'. So this is a thread that you can learn from Atheists, considering that your confused about Atheist's belief systems. And yes your posts are rather monotonous. I would also like to note that you feebly have made a massive generalisation and that you may or may not have realised that you have failed to consider that belief systems are provisional.
As a biologist, I know what 'life' is. I also know what 'death' means. Death is a stage of life within an organism. Life has an end- death. Death=end. That is it. There is nothing after death except that we decay. Same applies to all of life such as fungi, plants, bacteria, amobea and invertebrates when they die. Ask yourself, whether bacteria or say a blood cell has an afterlife. After all we are only carbon units. When we die we return to the ground and/or atmosphere. Death is one of the purposes to life. Without death, life would be purposeless. When we die, our life goes forever. Thats it, nothing else. Nothing is created nor destroyed. We therefore are always part of earth's elements. Thats the beauty of life. Life is just a transformation. From conception to death. No heaven, no hell, no reincarnation, no judgement day. We are after all, just a body of chemical matter, in the form of a living concious organism. To realise that life is all that there is, is not scary, its wonderful. We only have one life buddy.
Conway, take this into consideration as well:
So if God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an arch-power that encompasses God and gives reason for god's existence which appears to refute the idea that God could be the creator of logic.
The God as first-cause argument is slightly undermined. If there is no logical reason why God exists then it is more likely that there is no logical reason why the Universe exists, and that instead of assuming that the organisational force is a 'god', it's simpler and more rational to assume that it is the universe itself.
I'll also note that; it appears that whether God exists for logical reasons or not a fundamental contradiction occurs. The only answer is that creator-gods cannot possibly exist. If God is placed "beyond logic" this is a contradiction. And if it is said that Human logic is incapable of realizing such metaphysical truths, then this also undermines any argument that can be made by one human to another, for the existence of god.
Logic is more powerful than God. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God, is all-powerful and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If God has logical thoughts then logic is more powerful than God. If God chose to create anything it must have had reasons to do so, therefore logic will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception.
If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If it is true that God exists outside of time and therefore "everything has a cause" does not apply to God then it is equally possible that logic, not God, is what exists outside of time and requires no cause.
To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist. 'God' is an illusion. 'God' is a human construct. 'God' is a fraud.
quote:
Not one Atheist has the right to say anything is bad or wrong or immoral. Because without a God there is no reason for morality. And therefore all people have the right to do what ever they want including rape and murder, because without a God he or she wil not have anything to answer
How so? Give me comprehensive logical and evidential reasoning. I find it fallicious how anyone can think they can explain why anything at all exists by hypothesizing that something else exists in addition (such in your case Conway). Consider relativism. Sophisticated moral thinkers would accept that morals are relative to individual contexts. That is where theologists fail, or at least fall short of.
1 If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2 If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3 All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
Therefore: God does not exist.
I think Bertrand Russell, explains that there is no objective moral truth as well, so consider this:
The theory which I have been advocating is a form of the doctrine which is called the 'subjectivity' of values. This doctrine consists in maintaining that, if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says 'oysters are good' and another says 'I think they are bad,' we recognize that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences as to values are of this sort, although we do not naturally think them so when we are dealing with matters that seem to us more exalted than oysters. The chief ground for adopting this view is the complete impossibility of finding any arguments to prove that this or that has intrinsic value. If we all agreed, we might hold that we know values by intuition. We cannot prove, to a colour-blind man, that grass is green and not red. But there are various ways of proving to him that he lacks a power of discrimination which most men possess, whereas in the case of values there are no such ways, and disagreements are much more frequent than in the case of colours. Since no way can be even imagined for deciding a difference as to values, the conclusion is forced upon us that the difference is one of tastes, not one as to any objective truth...Moral codes seems to reflect people's adherence to and participation in different ways of life. The causal connection seems to be mainly that way around: it is that people approve of monogamy because they participate in a monogamous way of life rather than that they participate in a monogamous way of life because they approve of monogamy 
My Posts
40yrs • M • 
You still haven't given reason to my question. 
