Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Carnatic said: @RF- you are one of the theists i was talking about who take it overboard, condemn all other views, and end up violent.

I liked n voted up this post igm...you need bring more of this line of reasoning to your arguments at large. If anything this proves many times people can reason well when they free themselves of pre concepts n prejudice.

Are you making a case for infinite regression ??? Lol igm...how about you do some research on it before coming up front !
(there is nothing worse then someone who does not get the point trying to make one from what he doesn't get)

An infinite regression of causes requires an infinite amount of steps to get to any point in the grid reason why they explain nothing once they always relay the deeper explanation to the next level ad infinity...in fact an infinite regression cannot explain how you get to any point whatsoever once any point can always be referred back to infinity just the same. An open infinite chain of cause requires infinite energy infinite resources infinite complexity and other similar baloney just to theoretically work out. No one reasonably familiar with the implications, therefore someone able to reason in their own right, (once it doesn't take much to get the point) takes infinite regressions seriously.

Fil... you are the one that has, " a causer without a cause" as you put it... which is unreasonable and prejudiced in the extreme... which you are blind to. This belief cannot be defended it just has to be assumed for no reason. All your other theories depend on this first fundamental false assumption... if only you could free yourself from your initial incorrect assumption... and bring more of that to your line of reasoning and to your arguments at large...

Again igm stop to think before you post you are the one with extreme prejudice in reasoning here...I am not being pompous whatsoever, the problem is as old as philosophy itself. When arguing for causality there are only two possible takes, if you don't like infinite regressions then you are left with an ultimate cause which could not cause itself. This is pretty much straightforward thinking !

OK present the alternative in a causal frame of reference then...

It should be because my development on the matter never was build in a non causal enviroment and still was questioned. So I want to see what is his claim on that regard. Had my development been different and you might have a point.

But nonetheless I can address it right now by saying that I don't at all consider irrational Universes to be of any interest so to make the question in the first place. A non causal Universe which is not made of correlated patterns doesn't interest me and thus there's nothing meaningful I can say or ask of it

but in turn a Universe which is strongly correlated by patterns might as well be called causal for all meaningful purposes of what we intend to ask with "having causes" from a frame of reference inside spacetime.

The point is not about what exactly is causality, that is a semantic conundrum that in fact can be unravelled in the very idea of a non caused causer which points very clearly to the unimportance of the distinction between cause and strong correlation once a non caused causer pretty much defeats the hard coinage of causality all from the beginning...

so proceeding from there, going on about the problem of semantics on whether we ought to chose between strong correlated Universes or Causal Universes is the least of my concerns in this.

The point is, has always been, to discuss a rational in the world, an order of events which has patterns and to distinguish it from a hocus pocus irrational one.

Some naive people mistakenly think they can speak about the world without assuming a necessary rational but proceeding to rational conclusions, and that is where the conversation about it turns hilarious to say the least.

1- What does "overboard" mean?

2- Christianity is the only religion that has the Son of God in it, so that puts it in a super-league of its own..Smile

3- Am I violent? I haven't killed anybody yet!

PS Carnatic, what are you anyway, buddhist, muslim, jew, mormon, JW, satanist, fairy-worshipper, moonie, male/female/gay/lesbian etc? Your profile (like so many others) is a complete blank, so how can we take you all seriously if you're hiding under the bed like scaredy cats?..

Carnatic said: you don't simply see that jesus was simply a 'good person', inspired a lot of goodness in people, and therefore a lot of people worship him. instead, you go overboard, label him the special only son of god who has universal power to condemn all humanity to heaven or hell, and will automatically choose hell for all non-christians.

Well he did stuff that not even David Blaine can do so that makes him something special..

If you simply LIKE Jesus, you're his mate and technically become a Christian, you don't have to go to church or be baptised or join a religion or any of that razzmattaz.

OK present the alternative in a causal frame of reference then...

No I don't once the alternative is an infinite regress and its not my position its the default position. What is not based on logic is to think there is a third option. !

Romeo said: Well Jesus did stuff that not even David Blaine can do so that makes him something special..
Carnatic replied: many other great individuals have done miraculous things.

Romeo said: If you simply LIKE Jesus, you're his mate and technically become a Christian, you don't have to go to church or be baptised or join a religion or any of that razzmattaz.
Carnatic came back with: not all christians would agree with you on that but you still erroneously see jesus as the only special person with the only real connection to the real god, which you see as a separate thing from this universe. all those things are assumptions based on nothing but other people's testimony.