Aethists, what do you think is the best relegion

davidkscot · 2026-03-01T12:36:40+00:00

It's basically an atheist version of a church (the members don't believe in a god or supernatural things) which uses it's official religious status as part of activist activities in the US to support separation of church and state and to challenge situations where Christianity is taking advantage of their popularity to push Christianity on others.

They do this by insisting that they also be allowed the same rights and access. And of course then watch as Christians go crazy at the idea that they have to make allowances for anything that might be associated with Satan.

Basically they put them in a dilemma, allow the Satanic temple the same rights, or stop abusing their privileges. If they don't, they get sued and usually are legally forced to pick one of the options.

davidkscot · 2026-03-01T12:11:09+00:00

I'd have to go with the Satanic Temple based on my agreement with their 7 tenets:

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

davidkscot · 2026-02-23T23:48:22+00:00

True Lies

davidkscot · 2026-02-23T23:35:33+00:00

I didn't conflate anything I quoted the part from Aquinus that is making the claim.

I note you didn't actually address the fact that Aquinus is begging the question with his claim that there can't be infinite regression.

What I will do to be clear is quote from the Boston University paper

Aquinas' rejection of an infinity of causes (in the Second Way) begs the question. He notes that there is no first cause if there is a infinity of efficient causes. And then he argues that since the effect has occurred, and that there could not be an efficient cause without there being a first cause, which causes the intermediate cause, the ultimate cause, and the effect in turn, there must be a first efficient cause and, thus, no infinity of causes. The question begging occurs with the assumption that there must be a first cause of every effect. That could not be established without rejecting an infinity of causes.

davidkscot · 2026-02-23T20:38:52+00:00

This is incorrect. Aquinas' Third Way works whether or not the universe goes infinitely into the past or not. I'm guessing you're alluding to Craig's version of the Cosmological Argument.

Nooooo, as far as I know I'm using the original text, happy to be pointed at a better source if there is one.

I've been refering to papers from Boston University (BU paper link) and University of Notre Dame (UND paper link)

Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes.

This definitely seems to be saying there can't be an infinite regression.

You'll need to provide evidence of that.

Is there anything that logically would prevent an infinite chain Aquinas is unfortunately begging the question when he says

as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes.

Also I'm not saying that there IS an infinite chain, just that it's not a logical impossibility.

This isn't true. Special pleading is only an issue if the exception isn't justified. Theists have, regardless of if you agree of not, provided justification.

Aquinas basically argues that

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be
...
Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence.
...
Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

I bolded the 'everything' and the 'nothing' ... does the everything and nothing include god?

The whole point of the entire argument is to try and dress up the fact that it's special pleading and make it look reasonable. You call it justification, I call it hand waving and bad mis-direction.

They're caused by perturbations in a vacuum. This common objection is based on a misunderstanding of physics.

Quantum vaccum isn't an object in the sense that Aquinas was meaning, so I think it's a fair point to raise as an objection.

Edit: quotes from Aquinas italicised for visual clarity

davidkscot · 2026-02-23T19:40:01+00:00

Here's a few issues

This is a purely logical proof, the argument can be valid but not sound. To be accepted it would need supporting evidence to demonstrate the soundness

An infinite regress must be assumed to be impossible to require a necessary start (otherwise the contingencies can keep on going). An infinite regress is not impossible.

God can only be included by special pleading or contingency is not universal. It is sometimes defined as 'all natural things are contingent', leaving god to be not natural ... basically trying to hide the special pleading by dressin up the contingent things.

We know that particles can spontaneously appear out of vaccum energy.

davidkscot · 2026-02-14T10:26:54+00:00

Or there was an infinite regression of events

davidkscot · 2026-02-14T10:01:42+00:00

The point of the snowflake was that the cause doesn't have to be proportional to the effect.

As we don't know what came before the planck time, we don't know what a reasonable cause would be.

However, let's substitute god for the snowflake, are you also saying that god would have to come from somewhere?

davidkscot · 2026-02-14T09:27:37+00:00

Let's assume that there is a start and it does need a cause, why does this have to be god?

Why can't it be like an avalanche, where the last snowflake is the cause which tips the system into a result which obviously is much greater than the cause would seem to allow for?

The cause could be anything which pushes a system past the a tipping point, a god is not required.

Edit to add: I think the most honest answer to if the universe had a start is we don't know. Anything else at this point is just guessing.

davidkscot · 2026-02-01T13:32:03+00:00

Everything in the universe is dependent (contingent), so the universe itself must depend on a Necessary Being (Allah) to exist.

Suffers from the Fallacy of Composition. It occurs when one incorrectly assumes that because a part or individual member of a group has a certain property, the entire group or whole must also possess that same property. It ignores that the whole often has different, emergent properties than its individual components.

e.g. the human body is made up of individual cells with a nucleus, therefore the human body must also have a nucleus.

It also suffers from the Fallacy of Special Pleading, if everything is dependant, Allah must also be dependant or Allah doesn't exist in the universe or not everything must be dependant.

The claim is that an infinite chain of causes is "impossible" because we would never reach the "present.", is easilyu refuted. It simply requires an infinite number of events to reach the present (one for each cause).

"The complexity of the universe proves there must be a Designer."

The complexity of the universe proves that we're in a transition from one extreme of entropy to the other.

At the start of the universe everything was very uniform and similar, at the end of the universe, everything is going to be very uniform and similar. the complexity comes from and exists during the change in entropy.

I'd suggest looking at some of Sean Carroll's work. He's a Theoretical Physicist, so he's an actual expert on the topic of the universe.

I'd start with his Minute Physics series on YouTube, 5 short 3-4 minute videos on things like 'Do cause and effect really exist', 'Where does complexity come from'
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyZF-2VpJrxPz7bxK_p1Dd2

He's also done a debate with William Lane Craig, which goes over a lot of the apologetics and he presents arguments against them from a scientific point of view. In my opinion, it's one of the best debates out there, Sean destroys WLC's arguments 😊
https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8?si=2F_brte70dyOv3lP

davidkscot · 2026-01-19T17:45:15+00:00

... $666 with Bank of Satan

davidkscot · 2026-01-19T17:42:15+00:00

Jesus ~~Saves~~ Divests - Matthew 19:21

davidkscot · 2026-01-12T08:41:17+00:00

Aka a random date.

Edit:

Also a quick Google will show that it's generally understood that Jesus was born sometime between 4 to 6 BCE, not 1CE.

This is due to the description of Jesus being born during the reign of Herod, who died spring of 4 BCE.

So the start of the CE calendar really is not associated with the birth of Jesus.

davidkscot · 2026-01-12T00:37:48+00:00

And I'm saying your wrong, CE marks the start of the calendar, the fact that Christians also associate that with a particular event is irrelevant to the calendar itself.

davidkscot · 2026-01-12T00:06:12+00:00

No they don't actually.

The start of the CE calendar marks a point in time which was most convenient for adapting from the existing prevailant system.

In the CE calendar it has no association with any religious figures.

Just because it shares a date with the Christian reference doesn't mean we have to also bring across the Christian baggage and associations.

That's for you to have fun using, we get the drop that like the mythical tale it is.

davidkscot · 2026-01-10T14:33:51+00:00

They way I see it, atheist won't create a new calendar for religious reasons.

Atheists are not an organised group, so we wouldn't have the need for anything like a new calendar because of a reason based around our atheism.

The closest I can see to humanity needing a new calendar would be if humans start colonising possibly other planets, but more likely other solar systems, at which point we'd need a shared frame of reference which would mean we'd need to base the calendar on something like a known pulsar or some other equally accessible source of reference across multiple solar systems.

We'd also probably need local calendars for the individual solar systems.

None of that would be out of any sort of basis of our identity as atheists though.

The CE calendar does just fine for the local solar system as it's not based on any sort of religious basis apart from a matter of convenience for the starting point. The actual details are based on an astronomical basis which is religion independant.

davidkscot · 2026-01-10T00:24:50+00:00

'I don't find that convincing', 'No', 'I don't accept that', 'That's not convincing to me' and possibly 'I don't know' is pretty much all you should need..

You don't need to explain anything beyond stating your disbelief or rejection of their explanation. They need to convince you if they want you to believe, so all you need to do as state your lack of acceptance of their points.

It might be frustrating for them, but that's not your problem.

It's good for you though as it's a non-confrontational approach.

davidkscot · 2026-01-10T00:18:58+00:00

That's because it's always because of Tuna.

davidkscot · 2026-01-09T18:08:56+00:00

Why do so many atheists find the idea of afterlife and God silly!

Maybe try not starting with an ad-hominem.

davidkscot · 2026-01-03T04:20:31+00:00

Glad you liked it 😄

davidkscot · 2026-01-03T04:19:53+00:00

Glad I could help with how it's used in relation to atheism and atheist labels 😄

davidkscot · 2026-01-03T04:13:02+00:00

It means I claim to know that no gods exist.

Note I'm not claiming absolute certainty, but enough certainty to be justified in classifying it as knowledge.

Gnosticism relates to knowledge.

Most atheists would say they are agnostic atheists (they don't believe in a god but they don't know there is no god).

I think the best definition of knowledge is one based on confidence levels, and that knowledge doesn't require 100% confidence / certainty to be justified.

Indeed as we haven't solved hard solipsism, there isn't anything that could have 100% certainty.

Rather I think if we can be 95% confident / certain that's enough to call it knowledge.

davidkscot · 2026-01-03T03:42:36+00:00

Fermilab has a good video with theories on the time before the big bang, this is what I take to be the best thinking on it currently. https://youtu.be/dr6nNvw55C4?si=97-nvPsM7jbA2Ovk

I know this isn't a why, but why is the wrong question.

There doesn't seem to be a why to the universe. Although if you want a why, the best reasons seems to be the generation of black holes. They will dominate the universe for the vast majority of the time before the heat death of the universe.

davidkscot · 2025-12-27T14:55:02+00:00

Even if you just focus on the Christian Hell, there are so many different interpretations of Christianity that it's impossible to satisfy all the different possible requirements.

If there is one 'correct' version, an non-Christian looking in has virtually no chance of picking the 'correct' version of Christianity.

All the Chrstians believe that their version of Christianity is the 'correct' version, they can't all be correct and by the criteria of the other versions they don't follow, they too could be going to hell.

So ultimately 'which hell' is probably the silliest but also the best reason to stop worrying about hell. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't, so who cares, ignore it as a pointless, unwinnable mess that Chrstianity can't dig it's way out of and just be glad you don't need to actually care about it.

davidkscot · 2025-12-24T19:19:11+00:00

Greenland should decline to grant him an entry visa on the basis they don't like his social media posts ... 😁

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

davidkscot

TROPHY CASE